Australian Aboriginals

[Iron Greasel]

Posted by Havock: Well,it's 1 of 2 things. #1 you have a racist system that unfairly convicts them OR #2 they are too lazy to get jobs and would rather rob and steal. I would bet on option #2. I am willing to bet if the govenment cut off the dole they would all have no problem finding some sort of work. No one is telling them to go out and commit crimes. Unless they are conscrips in some sort of criminal army,it comes down to personal choice. Break into houses or break into the job market. They are choosing to be criminals and all choices have consequences.

And why are native Australians too lazy to get a job? When a huge group of people goes to pretty much same direction, there just might be forces at work greater than the personal choices the people make. Like tradition, or politics, or just cultural inertia of being considered vermin until quite recently. Blaming the individuals for not improving their lives does very little to fix the problem.

Posted by robertthebard: If I see a cat, and call it a cat, that's not racist. If somebody is being lazy, and is called lazy, that's descriptive, and maybe a little tactless, but it's not racist, regardless of what race "Lazy" belongs to.

Yes, but if you say "Aboriginals are lazy", or in general that any race is inferior or superior to any other race, that is very much racist.

I'll just use myself as an example. I spent 5 1/2 years in prison. I spent that time because I was too lazy to keep a job. Getting up in the morning after partying my paycheck away was too much effort. Should I blame society for my laziness? I didn't want to walk from one place to the next, so I stole cars to get there. How much of this should I blame on society, or laws? Is it different because I'm white? If so, that's as racist as it gets.

That depends on many things. Are you considered inferior because of your skin color? How long has it been possible for people of your race to gain citizenship? Are people of your race inherently lazy? I find it entirely plausible that people who look different and come from different social backgrounds might be treated differently, even if the law says they're not.

[ 06-04-2007, 04:04 AM: Message edited by: Iron Greasel ]

[Hivetyrant]

I would rather not write up a long post and get into a nice argument, but having grown up in regional South Australia, I have dealt with the Aboriginals a lot, and I have to say that while there are many that are decent and really do want to bring something positive to the community, the other 95% are a bunch of a$$holes

Just my opinion, and yes, I am racist when it comes to aboriginals, and if you went through what I did, you would be too.

[wellard]

Tell us some of your experiances Hivetyrant. Do not be scared. Your experiances are real and the views you draw from them are valid, even if they may not be popular amongst the 'political correct'

BTW you USA people any input about your native indian population would be welcome. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[robertthebard]

Now see, IG, what difference should my race make? The fact of the matter is, that that's how I was in my youth. I had the aforementioned prison time to correct myself, and did just that. I don't think it should matter if I'm White, Native American, Black, or Aboriginal. I took the steps required to change my life, and changed it. Saying that race matters in this is a very racist statement.

My great grandparents marched in the "Trail of Tears". While I did have my little spat with law enforcement, by my own doing, I might add, I have grown past that, and into the fine, upstanding, migraine inflicted individual I am today. However, you'll notice that I don't use "White Oppression" as an excuse, mainly because to look at me, I am white, but also, it's an excuse, not a reason. The fact that there are Native American doctors, lawyers and judges, and Black doctors, lawyers and judges shows me that, as I said previously, effort = results. If you want something, you apply yourself to getting it, and you eventually will. It takes work, no matter who you are, or what color.

In the long run, it's like I've said before, I have no doubt that there has been oppression in the past, and that prejudice most likely still exists, on both sides, it's going to be up to the individuals to start making the needed changes. It's not something that will happen overnight, but if individuals don't make the effort, then change will never happen.

[Havock]

Originally posted by Iron Greasel: Blaming the individuals for not improving their lives does very little to fix the problem.

Who are we to blame for our misfortunes if not ourselves? Past a certain age it is time to play in "Adult Land" and stop blaming everyone else for ones own shortcomings regardless of race,gender or national origin. If someone doesn't do for themselves no one else will do it for them. It is easy to say " I'm Insert oppressed group here , so I can never accomplish that." It is a lot harder to quit whining and start doing something to improve ones standing in life.

[robertthebard]

Now you see, that can't be right. Afterall, if people are responsible for their own actions, it eliminates the need for "White Guilt". 100 years from now, it will still be the oppressor's fault if nothing changes, or even if everything changes. People will still point at this and cry "Woe is me, look what we did to those poor people, no wonder x% of them are criminals...Even if it's proportionately the same as the % of the former oppressor's population. You see, that's the problem with statistics. x% of the *insert race here* population is in prison. Ok, what % of the prison population is another race? That's not something that the statistic maker wants you to count, generally, as it may not carry the shock value that it's intended to carry. I saw something very like that while I was in prison. 35% of the prison population was black...Ok, with a 15% Latino population, the majority of the rest of that was white. But, nobody was fussing about the white people, it's that 35% that was such a shocking number.

Some of the "victims" this stat was supposed to champion? One black guy that I knew in there that was such a victim of "White Oppression" took up a sub-machine gun, and killed a 2 year old baby in a drive by shooting, over a crack deal gone wrong. Yep, these people are that way because of "White Oppression", and we need to feel sorry for them. After all, what other causes are there to get all in people's faces about?

Here's a novel idea though. Tell me what it is I am supposed to do to change this situation. I try to be nice to everybody I meet, personally. I don't know what it is I'm supposed to do beyond that, so how about some hints. Instead of throwing problem after problem, why not throw some solutions? Tell me, what is it you're doing to eliminate the problem. Are you paying for somebody else to go to college maybe? Are you doing the work that you may do for free? Or are you drawing a nice paycheck for it, and simply trying to deride everybody else to assuage some of your own guilt for capitalizing on a bad situation.

BTW, I don't see this a view based on ignorance, but based on the experiences from my own life. I don't know all the story behind the Aboriginals, but I can look at the results of years of "White Guilt" in action. I've been fighting to get disability for these chronic headaches for 2 years now. If I were black, I'd already have it. In fact, I'd have it whether I needed it or not. If I were an illegal alien, I'd have it too. But because I'm white, and not a woman, I can't possibly need this assistance, despite the fact that I can't be outside for anything like an extended period. People being oppressed because they can get general assistance doesn't make much sense to me. Let's look at the other side of the coin, shall we? I know, that's an uncomfortable thought isn't it? To actually look at the underbelly of the system, and find out that these people are catered to hand and foot like somebody owes them everything. Take a good look, and you'll see that that's how the social services handles it. Why else do they ask about race on the application?

[Iron Greasel]

The statistics for Australia show that aboriginals have a lower standard of living than others. As being a native is something you are born to, it is impossible that people would be aboriginals because they have a lower standard of living, or that people would both be aboriginals and have a lower standard of living because of some third cause. Ergo, one can only assume that they have a lower standard of living because they are aboriginals.

They could still be actively oppressed, like they were 40 years ago, making climbing out of the gutter impossible. They could just be racially inferior to others, in which case they really have no hope, and the only solution to the problem would be sending them to internment camps and getting rid of the whole race. Or, and this is my personal favourite, it could be cultural.

Society affects people. This is not to be contested, it seems logical enough: if you grow up from birth without ever seeing another human, never talking to anyone and being fed by a robot, you become an antisocial freak of nature. If you are taught to hate flowers with Pavlovian conditioning, it is unlikely that you will ever like them. If you are subjected to pro-war propaganda, you can still be a peace-loving hippy, but it will be harder than just going along with the flow and hippies will be the minority. If all your friends smoke, you might start yourself. If you are taught that you are somehow worse than others, it is, taking what Havock said completely out of context, easy to say "I'm Insert oppressed group here, so I can never accomplish that." It is a lot harder to quit whining and start doing something to improve ones standing in life.

And most people tend to do things the easy way. People can, in most cases, choose for themselves, but other people affect the choises.

To sum my arguments:
Agreed, people are responsible of their own actions.
But, the actions people take are affected by society.
Ergo, the change must come from the society, not the individuals.

Oh, and if the statistics are misleading or just made up, there is no problem, aboriginals are doing just as well as everyone else and having your car stolen by an aboriginal is not more likely than having it stolen by anyone else, but since there's no way to check the statistics, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

[robertthebard]

A society cannot change an individual, if that individual has no desire to change. The logic is flawed, it's like saying that treatment cures drug addicts. It's been my experience that it doesn't. It can't. Individuals have to make the choice to take something away from it. If not, they go through the motions, say what they know the facility wants to hear, and go about their business. It's really easy to blame society for the ills of a particular group of people, and may even be valid to a point. However, society won't change without individuals doing the changing. Since society is just a group of individuals, it is incapable of changing in and of itself.

[Lucern]

Originally posted by robertthebard: You see, that's the problem with statistics. x% of the *insert race here* population is in prison. Ok, what % of the prison population is another race? That's not something that the statistic maker wants you to count, generally, as it may not carry the shock value that it's intended to carry. I saw something very like that while I was in prison. 35% of the prison population was black...Ok, with a 15% Latino population, the majority of the rest of that was white. But, nobody was fussing about the white people, it's that 35% that was such a shocking number.

I get that you're not working with actual stats. I also get that you probably are not referring to the actual statistical report, but the report of the report that goes through media filters. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p04.pdf

That link shows that in the age group 25-29, 8.4% of the entire US black male population was in prison in 2004, along with 2.4% of hispanic males and 1.2% of the white male population in that age group. Also, the actual raw numbers of black prisoners was more in every age group than white prisoners. These stats tell us nothing more than numbers, but they raise important questions, just like the aboriginal statistics. I hear you about your meds - that's injustice if I've ever heard it. When we focus on race too much we silence the negative social impact of other things, like class. Poor white people in the US are not well off by any standard, and the discourse of meritocracy that we like to bandy about casts millions of people as lazy, stupid, and incompetent. It's a bit more complicated than that, but to get this we have to stop the effort=results equation. It's too simplistic. See below.

A society cannot change an individual, if that individual has no desire to change. The logic is flawed, it's like saying that treatment cures drug addicts. It's been my experience that it doesn't.

You're focusing your analysis on criminal justice, and applying the results to society as a whole - that effort=results. If you believe this, it's perfectly logical. I believe, however, that this is incomplete at best. I have a pretty good idea where the notion comes from, so I could deconstruct it, but taking it for what it says seems more appropriate now, because it's popular.

Societies change people. That's my basic idea here, but, after some consideration, it's decidedly not simple. (Though, IG, it is contestable...it just happens to stand up to contestation!). Social science ain't easy, despite what some people think. Societies and people are in a dialectical relationship. I've got some terms to define. Societies are made up of individuals, I agree. It's therefore an abtract, but abstracts are useful. Let society mean the whole of human interaction - that's individual humans acting - at whatever scale we choose. So this basically means that the group of people and individual people are in a dialectical relationship. What's a dialectical relationship? It's one where where the two sides can be expected to change as each acts on the other, directly or indirectly. When an individual acts, s/he will likely change in the process, and she will likely have an effect on others. On the other side, groups of people include the individual person in the relationship, so if the individual changes, the group has to change as well, but this end of the equation has a much more meaningful bit of social life to it. All others acting change the situation in exactly the same way. It's necessarily complicated when we imagine the plethora of other people's actions that impact our lives. This gets more complicated when we take in the probability that other things change our lives as well that aren't necessarily human actors, or that they're artifacts of human activity, like technology. With this basic understanding we can imagine ourselves as fully competent human agents in the scope of complexity that living with other people brings. We can understand the impact of economies (political, ecological, and regular old economies), and multiple ideas of race, gender, class, and ethnicity as they are socially constructed and reconstructed, affecting us all, yet affecting us all differently.

Societies can change an individual. They must, in myriad ways - that we share the English language with its conventions, that we write in certain ways on this board, avoiding certain topics are but 2 evidences of this. You seem to be referring to whether or not institutions can change criminals. When we go to specifics, we've gotta understand the specific context to see what it does to the 'baseline' social model I provided above. Based on what we know of other systems, we can probably assume that they're at least 1)hierarchical, 2)isolating, 3)degrading. Probably worse. If we ask "can institutions X, Y, and Z change people A, B, and C?" then we're much closer to arriving at a methodology that can actually cope with the complexity that social interaction demands. This is, btw, akin what you suggested we do when you say to look at the underbelly (rather than just statistics and inference). That is my chosen profession exactly, and it's what I choose to do to make the world a better place. For this to do any good I've got to be able to conceive of people in societies rationally and communicate about them. I realize this writing isn't a great example of that, but I mainly go for main idea type stuff on message boards anyway. You don't get the 2 hour lecture with examples and ethnographic accounts without paying me

[robertthebard]

Good explanation, however, if individuals in a society don't make an effort to change, then no change takes place. A society can only change people that are willing to change, using message boards in general per your example, people that get banned are the one's that don't conform to the rules. The non-conformity of those individuals has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of us that do conform. This same microcosm can be carried over into the macrocosm. It's simply a larger population. If these same individuals don't choose to conform to general societies rules, the remainder of that society isn't responsible.

I think that's a long winded way to say that without individuals, the abstract of society doesn't exist. Without effort by a large portion of said individuals, society cannot itself change, let alone change other individuals. Ultimately, people will choose to live within the guidelines laid out by society, or they won't. I don't see how those that choose to live outside these rules/laws are the responsibility of those that live within them. If you choose to post an article violating the religious moratorium, it's not my responsibility.

I don't understand what the relevance is of x% of a population group being in prison is. Unless it's the position of the analyzer that this percentage is imprisoned unjustly? If x% of a population group is justly imprisoned, then this stat is meaningless.