Is Australia racist? (1 Viewer)

[scuba_steve2121]

Tell that to Sylvia who think Africans never really amounted to anything and how white people should civilize these savages. conquest of territory doesn't mean you're more civilized than others, just means you got a better army.

Civilise them? UGH effort. Let's just exploit them for cheap labour and take their natural resources... Oh wait been there done that.

 

[hazelpug]

Racism is an entirely meaningless concept. Its alleged definition changes to suit whatever situation the butthurt racism-accuser finds themselves in.

agreed

 

[NWO]

Yes. The australian continent which is located south of the equator is racist. It also possesses human emotions XD

 

[Freewheelin]

9 years later, just want to find some Apartheid notes and I find the edgiest thread I've ever read before lmaoo. Like was any rationale or research put into these arguments. No shit a power vacuum would form if the leading party just leaves a country to its devices. We see this in Congo with the Belgians, Diocletian and the tetrarchy, Russia and Lenin's death. No shit a country under several decades of oppression would struggle post liberation. What even are these gross generalisations on the "average" African when average constitutes extremeties related to African living standards (all remnants from African exploitation over the years). The average australian household has a networth of 1MM and the average aussie has a net worth of 200k-400k. In this case you have to account for statistical variables and rising equity with relatively stagnant wages in a climaxing market. But this only serves to demonstrate how misleading "average" becomes. Rant over.

 

[NeoToad]

Racism and xenophobia are a structural problem in Australia...

 

[SylviaB]

Racism and xenophobia are a structural problem in Australia...

Ahh yes, those racist "structures" which have brought in millions of foreigners. If Australia is a "racist" country (whatever that means), then literally every country on earth is a racist country. The only difference is that it's rich and people want to move here.

Don't you think its weird millions of people are desperate to come to a "racist" country? And make no effort to leave or warn others to avoid Australia? Wow, much racist!

 

[SylviaB]

9 years later, just want to find some Apartheid notes and I find the edgiest thread I've ever read before lmaoo. Like was any rationale or research put into these arguments. No shit a power vacuum would form if the leading party just leaves a country to its devices.

What do you mean "no shit"? This was predicted by NO anti-apartheid activists or governments. The absolutely hegemonic narrative from opponents of apartheid the world over was that Mandela and his part would rapidly build a progressive, prosperous and peaceful South Africa. It is only now when this has been shown to have been the opposite of the truth that people start claiming that this failure was "obviously" going to happen. If South Africa became as prosperous and well run as everyone was predicting, there would be no anti-apartheider on earth who would have been shocked by this. They would be saying "No shit they become successful!".

We see this in Congo with the Belgians, Diocletian and the tetrarchy, Russia and Lenin's death.

You mean like East Germany after the collapse of the soviet union? No?

No shit a country under several decades of oppression would struggle post liberation.

It's weird you accuse others of a lack of research when you say nonsense like this. When has South Africa ever not been chaotic? Before the white man showed up, the Zulus (central African Bantu people) came in and basically genocided the indigenous South Africans. And then the Europeans came and set up a country with laws and instiutions and industry but where the Africans have to be separate from the Europeans, and people like you lose your minds. Apartheid South Africa was so "oppressive" that MILLIONS of Africans from across the continent moved there during apartheid rule. People who are truly oppressed get away from their oppressors, they don't move towards them.

What even are these gross generalisations on the "average" African when average constitutes extremeties related to African living standards

There is an average IQ of Africans. There is an average IQ of Europeans. There is an average IQ of humans. Average IQ of a place or population is among the most important determinants of that place's or population's outcomes. These "generalisations" are what matter when we're talking about the big picture.

(all remnants from African exploitation over the years).

This is bullshit. Africa has always been poor. But it's economies grew massively during colonisation - at its peak many of the colonies were amongst the most productive countries on earth. But then colonisation ended and the countries collapsed with Europeans there to run them.

The average australian household has a networth of 1MM and the average aussie has a net worth of 200k-400k. In this case you have to account for statistical variables and rising equity with relatively stagnant wages in a climaxing market. But this only serves to demonstrate how misleading "average" becomes. Rant over.

There's nothing misleading about it because intelligence is normally distributed. It's not being skewed by outliers.

 

[watercoloureyes]

Ahh yes, those racist "structures" which have brought in millions of foreigners. If Australia is a "racist" country (whatever that means), then literally every country on earth is a racist country. The only difference is that it's rich and people want to move here.

Don't you think its weird millions of people are desperate to come to a "racist" country? And make no effort to leave or warn others to avoid Australia? Wow, much racist!

It’s so funny to see you write literal paragraphs on something you obviously don’t understand. You’re so immersed in your own racism you don’t even recognise how inconsistent your logic is and how stupid your justifications are. People co-existing in one country multiculturally doesn’t necessarily mean that the country isn’t racist, especially when the country literally colonised and committed mass genocide against an Indigenous population with the intention of removing them and their heritage from the land.

 

[watercoloureyes]

There is an average IQ of Africans. There is an average IQ of Europeans. There is an average IQ of humans. Average IQ of a place or population is among the most important determinants of that place's or population's outcomes. These "generalisations" are what matter when we're talking about the big picture.

IQ doesn’t measure intelligence in a broader sense, not to mention how many factors actually go into determining the average IQ of a population. Lol, there’s no genetic difference between any race because race is literally a social construct, and so one race isn’t intellectually superior to another by DNA.

 

[SylviaB]

IQ doesn’t measure intelligence in a broader sense

That's not what the consensus of actual intelligence researchers is: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289619301886

But let me guess, you haven't even heard of the g-factor before, right?

not to mention how many factors actually go into determining the average IQ of a population.

The general heritability of IQ is around 80%. The burden of proof is on you to show that this isn't the case for a particular population.

Lol, there’s no genetic difference between any race because race is literally a social construct, and so one race isn’t intellectually superior to another by DNA.

You can literally identify a person's race based on their DNA (as well as their skeleton).

But tell me, if there's no genetic differences between races, does that mean the difference between skin color and hair texture between sub-saharan africans and north-east asians has no genetic cause? Of course not!

Biological species is a "social construct". That doesn't mean that there aren't significant physical differences between species.

There are mean differences in every single part of the body between races. You don't know what the hell "social construct" even means.

 

[SylviaB]

It’s so funny to see you write literal paragraphs on something you obviously don’t understand. You’re so immersed in your own racism you don’t even recognise how inconsistent your logic is and how stupid your justifications are.

You haven't done a single thing to demonstrate any logical inconsistencies or stupid justifications on my part. You're just rattling off brainless talking points that have been refuted 1000 times over.

You say I don't understand what I'm talking about, but you say trivially false nonsense like "there's no genetic differences between races".

People co-existing in one country multiculturally doesn’t necessarily mean that the country isn’t racist,

Well it means the "racism" is so benign that it isn't sufficient to prevent prevent moving to the other side of the planet to live here. And again, if Australia is "racist" then every country on the planet is racist.

especially when the country literally colonised and committed mass genocide against an Indigenous population with the intention of removing them and their heritage from the land.

There was never any "mass genocide" (what the hell does "mass genocide" even mean? You can genocide an individual - that's oxymoronic. All genocide is by definition "mass genocide"). There was never anything remotely resembling an attempt to exterminate aboriginals. Mitochondrial DNA evidence shows that VERY few aboriginal lineages have been lost since colonisation.

But tell me, why does this make Australians today racist? And why doesn't this make Zulus in Africa "racist" for ACTUALLY committing genocide against the native south african peoples? Why don't you speak this way about every other group on the planet who has committed (far more violent) conquest? There's virtually no group of people who haven't engaged in conquest, and the colonisation of Australia was vastly more restrained than most acts of conquest by non-whites throughout history. And yet only ever white people are criticised for this.[/QUOTE]

 

[Vall]

lmao im impressed ur opinions havent changed over a full decade

 

[carrotsss]

There was never any "mass genocide" (what the hell does "mass genocide" even mean? You can genocide an individual - that's oxymoronic. All genocide is by definition "mass genocide"). There was never anything remotely resembling an attempt to exterminate aboriginals. Mitochondrial DNA evidence shows that VERY few aboriginal lineages have been lost since colonisation.

Tasmania

 

[chilli 412]

 

[Freewheelin]

What do you mean "no shit"? This was predicted by NO anti-apartheid activists or governments. The absolutely hegemonic narrative from opponents of apartheid the world over was that Mandela and his part would rapidly build a progressive, prosperous and peaceful South Africa. It is only now when this has been shown to have been the opposite of the truth that people start claiming that this failure was "obviously" going to happen. If South Africa became as prosperous and well run as everyone was predicting, there would be no anti-apartheider on earth who would have been shocked by this. They would be saying "No shit they become successful!".

What? We're talking in retrospect not in terms of context. This is post-Apartheid analysis, we're attributing the current state of Africa to the power vacuum and we're using history as evidence of reasoning (not that it was obvious Apartheid was going to fail). Perhaps it was my fault that I wasn't clear in my phrasing, or perhaps you just misunderstood my point entirely (after all, you've returned to this thread a decade later). Regardless, it should be obvious now that South Africa's current state is due to the power vacuum.

You mean like East Germany after the collapse of the soviet union? No?

I think you've also misunderstood here, my point was that power vacuums are evident historically and can cause issues in development. Sure, East Germany recovered, but they also recovered from WW1 and WW2 quite quickly in comparison to other participating powers. No need to be overly scrupulous about any of the cases anyway because context matters and the outcome wasn't necessarily my point.

It's weird you accuse others of a lack of research when you say nonsense like this. When has South Africa ever not been chaotic? Before the white man showed up, the Zulus (central African Bantu people) came in and basically genocided the indigenous South Africans. And then the Europeans came and set up a country with laws and instiutions and industry but where the Africans have to be separate from the Europeans, and people like you lose your minds. Apartheid South Africa was so "oppressive" that MILLIONS of Africans from across the continent moved there during apartheid rule. People who are truly oppressed get away from their oppressors, they don't move towards them.

So because both instances in South Africa were oppressive, Apartheid is justified? The institution of Bantustans, low South African wages, legislations restricting Black South Africans from receiving academic education (not taught in english, not taught maths, sciences, taught domestic skills) and a plethora of other policies are all pretty oppressive. To ignore the above and justify the Apartheid is to support industry against oppression.

There is an average IQ of Africans. There is an average IQ of Europeans. There is an average IQ of humans. Average IQ of a place or population is among the most important determinants of that place's or population's outcomes. These "generalisations" are what matter when we're talking about the big picture.

And I just explained why average is a misleading method of "talking about the big picture". Generalisations are very hard to use because they often propagate misleading statistics. The average australian household has a networth of 1MM and the average aussie has a net worth of 200k-400k, you'll find that Australians are one of the richest populations on average in the world. Ignoring variability and context when using statistics is not a good method of generalisation else we'll end up wondering why the richest populations on Earth end up living in houses built in the 70s. Extremities tend to conflate averages, in terms of IQ, IQ is greatly influenced by upbringing, schooling, familiarity with the exam, population size, and a plethora of other factors.

This is bullshit. Africa has always been poor. But it's economies grew massively during colonisation - at its peak many of the colonies were amongst the most productive countries on earth. But then colonisation ended and the countries collapsed with Europeans there to run them.


There's nothing misleading about it because intelligence is normally distributed. It's not being skewed by outliers.

NIKE, Nestle etc. are producing more goods than they ever have before, doesn't justify the sweat shops, child labor and cost cutting methods used let alone the low wages. Overall productiveness is not necessarily a sign for overall prosperity. Funds do not necessarily 'trickle down'.

If we're saying that economic results are proof of Apartheid's effectiveness and that the oppression of the Blacks into rural Bantustans (etc.) can be ignored (because of SA's past of genocide), then that's a question of ethics and where your political worldview stand on. If we're saying that the Apartheid is not oppressive, then we're ignoring the numerous oppressive policies, scientific racism, establishment myth of Voortrekkers hinting a superiority, etc. If we're ignoring this, then I guess a decade hasn't done much to change your opinion and perhaps for several more, you'll not be convinced.

 

[airora]

That's not what the consensus of actual intelligence researchers is: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289619301886

But let me guess, you haven't even heard of the g-factor before, right?

Looks like a very scientifically valid study. A methodology that allowed 72 "experts" (where 4% of the respondents were identified as "interested laypersons" and 6% were students) to self-select into the questionnaire is definitely not biassed in any way and definitely represents the consensus of the research community.

But let me guess, you haven't heard of robust research methods before, right?

 

[maths4dayz]

I personally never had any issues with racism and most people I've known have always been very welcoming to people from other cultures, and also towards aboriginals. However, from my observation, it's actually the politically correct people who perpetuate racism and discrimination by demonising 'privileged' white Australians, resulting in reverse racism. This is actually a big problem in employment (especially in Oil and Gas), because companies will have a diversity quota to meet on hiring people of mixed race etc.. While this sounds good, it actually disadvantages caucasian Aussies because even if they have an equal skillset to someone in the mixed race or minority category, the latter will be prioritised for a job position. I believe in fair competition and equal opportunity, with employment based on your skillset and experience, regardless of your race.

I have a number of friends from a range of cultural backgrounds who couldn't care less if there was a joking racial comment made. Yet, my politically correct friends will instantly condemn any such comments in order to virtue signal how much they care that it may offend that person. Therefore, from my experience, it's not the minority groups that feel oppressed by racism and discrimination, but the people that dote on them as "victims of white privilege".

As mentioned elsewhere, protecting foreign interests does not make Australians racist. Preventing our commodities and land from being bought up by the foreign investors should be prioritised. I've observed that political correctness prevents discussion on controversial issues in this respect, as individuals such as Pauline Hansen and Malcolm Roberts are labelled "racist" by leftists as soon as they raise concerns about, for instance, Port Hedland (Australia's largest commodity port) and Port Darwin being controlled by the Chinese; a significant problem moving into the future with escalating China-Taiwan situation. It's like trigger words such as "racist" and "climate denier" etc. are being used to undermine anyone whose ideology does not fit with the dominant narrative of political correctness in order to restrict our free speech and prevent legitimate discussions from taking place.

 

[SylviaB]

Looks like a very scientifically valid study. A methodology that allowed 72 "experts" (where 4% of the respondents were identified as "interested laypersons" and 6% were students) to self-select into the questionnaire is definitely not biassed in any way and definitely represents the consensus of the research community.

But let me guess, you haven't heard of robust research methods before, right?

The political alignment of the experts were surveyed and even the left-wing researchers accepted the validity of IQ testing and the g-factor. You really just do not understand enough about intelligence research, otherwise you wouldn't say goofy nonsense like "IQ doesn't measure intelligence".

 

[SylviaB]

What? We're talking in retrospect not in terms of context.

You said "no shit". That means it's obvious, and would have been predicted before it happened. It wasn't.

This is post-Apartheid analysis, we're attributing the current state of Africa to the power vacuum

There wasn't even a power vacuum! The apartheid government didn't just disappear and then different groups fought for control. It was ruled by Mandela and the ANC from day dot!

and we're using history as evidence of reasoning (not that it was obvious Apartheid was going to fail).

If it's not obvious, then don't say "no shit". And it's not apartheid failing that we're talking about, it's post-apartheid south africa declining that we're talking about.

Perhaps it was my fault that I wasn't clear in my phrasing, or perhaps you just misunderstood my point entirely (after all, you've returned to this thread a decade later). Regardless, it should be obvious now that South Africa's current state is due to the power vacuum.

Again, there was no power vacuum.

The apartheid government existed until the first universal elections took place in 1994, in which the ANC won a majority of the vote and a majority of seats in parliament (members of the national assembly). There was no point at which there was a lack of government or inability to maintain law and order. This was as smooth a transition as one could possibly expect.

Things went bad for South Africa because of chronic government mismanagement and the enactment of bad policy.

I think you've also misunderstood here, my point was that power vacuums are evident historically and can cause issues in development. Sure, East Germany recovered, but they also recovered from WW1 and WW2 quite quickly in comparison to other participating powers. No need to be overly scrupulous about any of the cases anyway because context matters and the outcome wasn't necessarily my point.

Okay, why can Germany recover so easily, when Africans can't? They got the absolute messiah of afro-centric leaders elected, Mandela, they should have thrived post-apartheid.

So because both instances in South Africa were oppressive, Apartheid is justified?

I don't support apartheid and I don't know what being "justified" means in this context. My point is that it's extrememly selective or elextremely ignorant to make a big deal about the apartheid government being "oppressive", as if this is an aberration from the previous state of affairs. It was an improvement.

The institution of Bantustans, low South African wages, legislations restricting Black South Africans from receiving academic education (not taught in english, not taught maths, sciences, taught domestic skills) and a plethora of other policies are all pretty oppressive. To ignore the above and justify the Apartheid is to support industry against oppression.

- Bantus were genocidal imperialists.

- Low wages? They were higher than anywhere else on the continent. It was a developing country.
-Restricting education? These schools didn't exist anywhere else on the continent except for some other colonies. The only reason they existed in South Africa is because of Europeans. And still, South Africans had a higher literacy rate than most of the world at the time. Not learning written language, not learning maths, not learning science, this was the norm for the world, not some unusual restriction imposed on black south africans

My point was simply that apartheid south africa was vastly less oppressive than what came before it, and yet nobody seems to know or care about this.

Ignoring variability and context when using statistics is not a good method of generalisation else we'll end up wondering why the richest populations on Earth end up living in houses built in the 70s.

Like I said, that's because there's a heavily skewed income/wealth distribution. But IQ isn't like this, it's normally distributed. And using these distributions allows us to make very accurate predictions about the world, unlike using average wealth etc.

Extremities tend to conflate averages, in terms of IQ, IQ is greatly influenced by upbringing, schooling, familiarity with the exam, population size, and a plethora of other factors.

Firstly, that's not what "conflate" means.

Secondly, yes yes, those things can influence IQ, but it doesn't mean that in practice they explain the observed variation. Heritability studies are used to estimate the contribution of genetic variance to the observed variance in IQ, and the answer is around 80%.

For example, being familiar with IQ tests can make you do better on them, but in reality so few people are familiar with them that the contribution to the variance is literally negligible.

NIKE, Nestle etc. are producing more goods than they ever have before, doesn't justify the sweat shops, child labor and cost cutting methods used let alone the low wages. Overall productiveness is not necessarily a sign for overall prosperity. Funds do not necessarily 'trickle down'.

My point is that IQ is very good at predicting the outcomes of a society. Having a high IQ population is not sufficient for having a successful society, but it seems like it is definitely a necessary condition.

pquote]If we're saying that economic results are proof of Apartheid's effectiveness and that the oppression of the Blacks into rural Bantustans (etc.) can be ignored (because of SA's past of genocide), then that's a question of ethics and where your political worldview stand on. If we're saying that the Apartheid is not oppressive, then we're ignoring the numerous oppressive policies, scientific racism, establishment myth of Voortrekkers hinting a superiority, etc. If we're ignoring this, then I guess a decade hasn't done much to change your opinion and perhaps for several more, you'll not be convinced.
[/QUOTE]

Look, I don't support colonialism. I'm just saying people make out like apartheid was some grave crime against humanity. It wasn't. It's what was needed to regulate the behavior of black south africans to maintain a function society. Now these regulations are gone, crime and anti-social behavior is out of control in south africa. And these policies were so "oppressive" that millions of black africans from across the continent moved to south africa after the establishment of apartheid rule because of how much better the country was compared to everywhere else.

 

[dan964]

Popping in for some remarks and then leaving the conversation.

The general heritability of IQ is around 80%. The burden of proof is on you to show that this isn't the case for a particular population.

Sylvia is right, IQ is measuring intelligence.

The figure can be as high as 80% but 50-70% is probably a more realistic figure for e.g.
Devlin et. all (1997) has it has at 49%
Chipuer et. all (1990) has 51%
Loehlin (1989) has 47% and 58%
(and this is for adults, for children it is even less, closer to 20%)

While it is true that we can identify different backgrounds by DNA, the question is to whether the same genetic factors determine racial/skin tone differences and IQ differences, and considering there are environmental factors it could also be a compounding effect regardless. I'm yet to do my research into this so don't quote me on this just yet aha

On the "burden of proof" that Sylvia desires - considering that no-one here (and even Sylvia doesn't normally) cannot be bothered linking their sources - expecting proof in a BoS thread is a bit of unrealistic expectation and if one is looking for a proof, then one is probably better off looking elsewhere.

But interestingly though a lot of hereditarian research is generally not widely accepted amongst the broader scientific community - so that does present its challenges in thinking through this topic...
(J.P. Jackson & Winston, 2020)

Biological species is a "social construct". That doesn't mean that there aren't significant physical differences between species.
There are mean differences in every single part of the body between races. You don't know what the hell "social construct" even means.

Observation of biological reality is what results in species classification - so I wouldn't define that as a social construct imho. That's like saying any classification in science is a social construct.

Irrespective of whether apartheid was an improvement or not, I don't think the ends justify the means. Both matter.

On the issue of whether Australia is a racist country, that is all dependent on what someone means by racism but I don't affirm "critical race theory" whereby racism is inherent in so called structures of Australian society.

Definitely a page turner, would encourage y'all to keep engaging on this in a helpful and respectful manner.
Dan