So why do the Murdoch press, the Liberal party (in Howard/Abbott form), talkback radio, TV stations and other institutions with power in society make so much effort to stir up racism among the anglo 'strayans?
They do? Racial orthodoxy tends to take two positions: the conservative position and the liberal position. The conservative position is that "Racism is nowhere near as bad as it used to be and the only thing that is holding minorities back is welfare-dependence, mollycoddling and refusal to achieve". The liberal position is along the lines of "racism is still widespread and prevalent in education and government, and more social engineering and money thrown at their communities is what is necessary to overcome it and allow minority groups to equalize with whites." The position the Murdoch press and pundits like Andrew Bolt etc tends to take, is the first one. It may be considererd racist by you, but it is by no means "racist" by the actual proper definition of the word, because it still holds proportional representation and equality of outcome as possible. I take a third position, that neither of these things are likely to ever come about, because human populations are
not mathematically, geometrically and physically down to the tenth decimal point equal, in every respect.
Maybe the Murdoch press report on minority crime a lot more. This is
much less common in the United States (which was the focus of this topic), where the general rule is that if the press have not mentioned the race of the perpetrator involved in a story, then you can be sure it's a black person. But how is it racist to report on minority crime? I wish I could provide a better analysis of this point of yours, but I do not and have not followed the mainstream media for a very long time, so I'm not exactly familiar with it.
As for the Liberal party, whenever they make some controversial 'racist' comments it's really just to keep up the impression that they look tough and conservative, thus distinguishing them in the eyes of their simpleton voters more sharply from the Laborr party. It's an image game; they talk tough because they want to hold on as best they can to the part of their white constituency that will be suckered in by their "tough talking", but in actual practice, immigration under them will continue unabated. Under the leadership of John Howard, total settler arrivals increased 60%. You need a party headed by somebody like me to actually make some significant changes on this issue.
Also, it's one thing to say that the education system preaches racial equality, which it sure does, but it doesn't practice it by any stretch of the imagination. The institutional disadvantage and discrimination against Aboriginal Australians in particular, and other minorities, is shocking. Schools basically aim to replicate the dominant culture of society (read: anglo) in its current form in the next generations and anyone outside that group is inherently disadvantaged from the first day they walk through the gates. Try speaking Aboriginal English at school and see how far you get.
Here's why: the majority in this country is Anglo Saxon. This does not mean however that we do not spend any time at all discussing Aboriginal culture. When I was at school, we spent, probably, a disproportionate amount of time talking about Aboriginals and Aboriginal issues relative to their level in the population. We had NAIDOC and Reconciliaton day every year, teachers lecturing us on Aboriginal culture and Aboriginals coming in to talk to us about the stolen generation.
Actually, your argument is kind of weird. If we really were serious about "replicating" Aboriginal culture in our society, then the first step would in fact be to close down all of our schools. We would have to tear out all of our farms, dynamite our cities and destroy all of our technology. Education and instruction in subjects like written languge, grammar and math is foreign to Aboriginal culture, which had not developed any of these things. You are too focused upon surface-content of the material learned. If we started teaching Aboriginal students full-time "Aboriginal culture" then it is likely that they wouldn't want to learn about that either. Aboriginals will not be interested in education regardless of what is being taught. Aboriginal parents do not value education and do not raise their children as we do. It's just like how the College Board wanted to make the Scholastic Aptitude Test more fair to minorities by making about three quarters of the reading comprehension passages about minorities in some way. Needless to say, this had no influence whatsoever on test scores.
The terrible obstactle of possible intrinsic racial differences is present here. Full-blooded Aboriginals have an average IQ of about
62, the lowest in the entire world, after the Kalahari Bushmen. It is obvious just from observing their appearences that they are an extremely primitive looking people; with their wide nostrils, gargantuan jaws, and large-brow ridges, I would not be surprised if they turned out to be genetically very close to the earliest version of Homo Sapiens. They resemble the San people quite closely too. Of course, most Aboriginals are not full-blooded anymore, but even despite this, they are still possibly
genetically disadvantaged for functioning properly in civilization, which explains why they do so poorly in employment and education.
You also failed to mention an important gap in your theory that it is
cultural incompatibility that causes Aboriginal disadvantage in an educational context; that Whites are not the highest achievers in Australian education. Orientals are. Why do Orientals, many of which have freshly arrived from overseas and are much less familiar with Australian culture than Aboriginals, who have been here their whole lives, do better in schools than whites? This doesn't just happen here; Asians do better than whites in just about any white majority society with an Asian minority. This is a consistent, global pattern that your cultural incompatibility and "institutional discrimination" (and I could detail to you just some of the many ways in which Whites have discriminated against Asians in our societies over the past two hundred years) hypothesis completely fails to explain. The Chinese in Malaysia control a considerable percentage of the Malaysia's total wealth, despite the fact that Malaysians are the majority, set the educational curriculum and actually maintain (unlike us) policies that explictly discriminate against the Chinese. None of this makes any sense; at least, until you face up to the possibiltythat we're dealing with something that is beyond the environment, something that the equality orthodoxy fails to explain.
well yeah you're right, because ppl from v. low socioeconomic status have similar problems
