[xasop]

That subject line is a bit of a mouthful, isn't it?

Our Government and Opposition are united in support for talks with Indigenous leaders towards a referendum to give their people constitutional recognition. Abbott's intention is that it be held on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, which allowed Aborigines to be counted as part of the population, and to be treated the same as other races as far as legislative powers are concerned.

However, a key difference between the 1967 referendum and the one currently under discussion is that, while the Constitution had racist terms removed in 1967, Parliament is now seeking to introduce new discriminatory stipulations. No specific text for the referendum has yet been put forward, but any wording that grants special rights or privileges to a particular race is racist. I find it deeply unsettling that our ruling class is either unable to see the difference between granting equality and granting special privileges, or else is willing to disregard it out of political convenience.

A couple of Senators have spoken out against the move. Both Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm (NSW) and Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi (SA) have flagged the plan for what it is: an attempt to insert racially divisive language into our nation's supreme law. Two voices of reason in a Parliament of 226 isn't much, but with any luck, more will join them once a specific proposal is announced and there is concrete wording to critique.

Pending review of the final proposal, I intend to vote against this change, and perhaps also volunteer my time to the No campaign. We may not be able to stop our politicians from foisting their twisted reasoning onto us, but with a referendum, there is always hope to sway the general public.

[Pete Svarrior]

any wording that grants special rights or privileges to a particular race is racist. I find it deeply unsettling that our ruling class is either unable to see the difference between granting equality and granting special privileges, or else is willing to disregard it out of political convenience.

I pretty much agree with you, but I don't think the issue is as simple as them not seeing the difference between equality and special privileges and/or an issue of political convenience. I suspect it's more likely to do with the common confusion between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome (also referred to as "equity" or "social justice"). The term "equality", on its own, is difficult to use in discussion these days, since it means different things to different people.

This image more or less illustrates the concepts and presents what I'd consider to be a fairly standard case for equality of outcome:



Annoyingly, it also illustrates where the confusion comes from. It asserts that the goal of "equity" is to grant everyone the same opportunities, despite the fact that its goal is to equalise outcome by offering unequal benefits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome#Comparing_equalities:_outcome_vs_opportunity

[xasop]

I pretty much agree with you, but I don't think the issue is as simple as them not seeing the difference between equality and special privileges and/or an issue of political convenience. I suspect it's more likely to do with the common confusion between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome (also referred to as "equity" or "social justice"). The term "equality", on its own, is difficult to use in discussion these days, since it means different things to different people.

I'm not necessarily opposed to helping the genuinely disadvantaged by giving them access to special opportunities, but that should be done on the basis of their being disadvantaged, through some legal definition that actually measures disadvantage rather than race (or sex, or religion, or anything else). What we're seeing in Australia at the moment is an acknowledgement that most Aborigines are severely disadvantaged, followed by the warped conclusion that we should help them on the basis that they are Aboriginal.

No. That's racist. Let's help them because they are disadvantaged.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

You are facing the same thing in Australia that we face here in the USA. Should we benefit people because they are Black, or because they are disadvantaged? I know White people who are as disadvantaged as Black people, and yet don't qualify for the same benefits as those Black people, because they have the wrong skin colour.

Should we create benefits for people based on merit? If a person, based on merit, can prove that they deserve benefits to help them out, regardless of colour, should we help that person? I would be ok with that. Should we benefit people based on past mistreatment/ In my opinion, no. I've never mistreated a Black person. In fact, I've never known that many.

So there you are.

[Fortuna]

You shouldn't get free stuff for being dumb.

[JRowe]

I know White people who are as disadvantaged as Black people, and yet don't qualify for the same benefits as those Black people, because they have the wrong skin colour.

Things like that can't be taken out of context. It's been proven that it is harder for black people to, for example, get jobs: so though a white person and black person may, as a static image, appear equal, once you pay attention to context and the long-term, the white person does have an advantage.
While it would depend on what benefit specifically you're thinking about, often the justification would be something like that.

As a general rule, people shouldn't receive any special treatment as a direct consequence of their skin color. If their skin color causes them to be treated a certain way however, then as a result of that treatment, then they should receive something to even the playing field.

[Tau]

I know exactly nothing about the situation aboriginal people are in in Australia, and I know little about this constitutional thing they're proposing, but I'm gonna offer my thoughts on the matter anyway because of course I am.

If aborigines are face discrimination and lack of equality solely due to their race, and this is true for all (or at least virtually all) aborigines, then it's justified to create positive discrimination based on race. If not, then discrimination based on socio-economics is probably more justifiable.

Of course, it's probably a bit more grey than that makes it seem. As we see in the US, many or even most of the problems minority groups face are a result of socio-economics, but there's a definite and non-insignificant racist element. Assuming that's true for aborigines, it's probably justified and ethical to create positive discrimination programs, but to do so without also focusing on class issues in general is missing the point.

I suppose the question, for me, is: is it possible to end the racial economic disparities in Australia without discriminatory practices? If so, implementing them would be unethical. If not, failing to implement them would be unethical. Regardless, something ought to be done.

[xasop]

It's been proven that it is harder for black people to, for example, get jobs

I would really like to see a source for this. My intuition is that they don't find it harder to get jobs because they're black, but for some economically-founded reason, such as having poorer education. If that is so, then their race is irrelevant, and we can treat the economic issue independently.

However, until you provide a citation for your claim, it's impossible to verify either position.

I suppose the question, for me, is: is it possible to end the racial economic disparities in Australia without discriminatory practices? If so, implementing them would be unethical. If not, failing to implement them would be unethical. Regardless, something ought to be done.

I disagree. If you provide financial support to the disadvantaged, then a free market will most likely self-normalise within a generation or so, which is the minimum time required for that financial support to translate into better health and education for new graduates. A market which is encumbered by anti-discrimination laws will never self-normalise, because such laws only serve to uphold the sense of injustice that fuels racial bias.

Consider yourself as an employer 12 years after such financial support is instituted, and you have two candidates applying for a job. You can choose a caucasian demanding a salary of $20/hour because she knows she can go next door and get the same job for the same pay otherwise, or one of the first Aboriginal graduates with the skills required to perform the job, who demands a salary of $15/hour because racial prejudice is still strong, and he's less confident in his employability. Both are equally capable. Which do you choose?

Now put yourself in the position of a white person looking for work. You see Aborigines getting hired at $15/hour by employees snatching up cheap labour, and find it more difficult to get work at your expected rate of $20/hour. What are you going to do to make yourself more employable?

The free market regulates itself through motivated self-interest, regardless of racial bias. A controlled market perpetuates those biases by providing incentives to act against one's own financial interest for the benefit of minority groups.

[JRowe]

It's been proven that it is harder for black people to, for example, get jobs

I would really like to see a source for this. My intuition is that they don't find it harder to get jobs because they're black, but for some economically-founded reason, such as having poorer education. If that is so, then their race is irrelevant, and we can treat the economic issue independently.

However, until you provide a citation for your claim, it's impossible to verify either position.

I can't find every study I've seen on this at the drop of a hat, but the first I found was on racial names:
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

And this study, while it was focused on a separate topic, demonstrates a similar result:
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc232i.pdf
With similar credentials, half as many black people were called back as white: and a higher percentage of white felons were called back, than those who were black with no criminal record. It's very hard to deny the bias.

Also, though correlation does not imply causation, there will often be some link. It isn't always going to be coincidence: if non-whites have a higher percentage of something, such as economic disparity, that shouldn't be divorced from race, if race is a probable cause.

[Tau]

It's been proven that it is harder for black people to, for example, get jobs

I would really like to see a source for this. My intuition is that they don't find it harder to get jobs because they're black, but for some economically-founded reason, such as having poorer education. If that is so, then their race is irrelevant, and we can treat the economic issue independently.

However, until you provide a citation for your claim, it's impossible to verify either position.

Here's an interesting one I just found. The methodology is, they created a bunch of fake resumes with the variables being prestigiousness of university attended and race. They found significant racial bias, and since they were using fake people and fake resumes it probably wasn't an economically founded reason.

                                 White       Black
Prestigious university   1/6           1/8
Non-prestigious uni      1/9          1/15

The fractions represent the likelihood that a resume would get a response.

http://www.ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22725-african-americans-with-elite-college-degrees-have-little-advantage-in-job-market

Even a Harvard degree can't make DaQuan as enticing as Charlie to employers

______________

So then operating under the assumption that racial bias alone is a significant factor, and that economics and education alone aren't enough to fully explain the problem, what do we do?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, I do believe there was a recent speech given by a Professor at Duke, comparing Blacks to Asians, suggesting that Asians assimilate better to white culture, with names like "Charles" being used as personal names, whereas Blacks use names like "DaQuan". Perhaps if they used names like "Charles", that might get them a little further in life as well.

I myself remember a co-worker who spoke atrocious English, and was an immigrant from Laos. But he had given himself the name of "Wilson" Rathsasombeth rather than whatever his personal name had been to ease his way into our society. And he was picking up English more and more by the day. I don't doubt that this enterprising gentleman today probably speaks excellent English, and probably has that credit card, the application for which I helped him fill out.

Perhaps the Duke Professor has a point.

[Saddam Hussein]

Well, I do believe there was a recent speech given by a Professor at Duke, comparing Blacks to Asians, suggesting that Asians assimilate better to white culture, with names like "Charles" being used as personal names, whereas Blacks use names like "DaQuan". Perhaps if they used names like "Charles", that might get them a little further in life as well.

I myself remember a co-worker who spoke atrocious English, and was an immigrant from Laos. But he had given himself the name of "Wilson" Rathsasombeth rather than whatever his personal name had been to ease his way into our society. And he was picking up English more and more by the day. I don't doubt that this enterprising gentleman today probably speaks excellent English, and probably has that credit card, the application for which I helped him fill out.

Perhaps the Duke Professor has a point.

It was an Internet comment, not a speech, and it relied on a very bizarre assumption that black people apparently "choose" their names, as opposed to being born with them like the rest of us.  I have to say that I find it incredibly ironic that someone as proud of their cultural identity and ethnicity as you would agree with him.  You wouldn't be too happy if you were told that you ought to just homogenize yourself for mainstream society.

[garygreen]

Well, I do believe there was a recent speech given by a Professor at Duke, comparing Blacks to Asians, suggesting that Asians assimilate better to white culture, with names like "Charles" being used as personal names, whereas Blacks use names like "DaQuan". Perhaps if they used names like "Charles", that might get them a little further in life as well.

I myself remember a co-worker who spoke atrocious English, and was an immigrant from Laos. But he had given himself the name of "Wilson" Rathsasombeth rather than whatever his personal name had been to ease his way into our society. And he was picking up English more and more by the day. I don't doubt that this enterprising gentleman today probably speaks excellent English, and probably has that credit card, the application for which I helped him fill out.

Perhaps the Duke Professor has a point.

I think that this is an easy thing to believe when none of your cultural values and preferences are at stake.  It's a surprising line of thought coming from a member of a group of people perhaps best known for their ability to preserve their cultural artifacts, often under nearly insufferable conditions.  It has definitely been the case for many Jewish settlements that their cultural practices were a barrier to their participation in the economy.  Aren't you glad that those communities resisted those barriers and preserved their practices? 

Wouldn't you want members of those communities to be accepted or rejected by society based on their merits and not the peculiarity of the name Ezekiel?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Actually, we do. I have a Hebrew name, which I use for all religious purposes, and a secular name, which is my legal name. I use it on my driver license, my debit card, etc. My Hebrew name is Ya'akov ben Avraham. My legal name is a typically boring English sounding name. Obviously I am not going to reveal it here.

Only in Israel would my Hebrew name become my official name. Although I am an Orthodox Jew, the only way my Hebrew name in the USA would be my legal name is if I changed my name legally, which I wouldn't do unless I felt the need to move into some place like Kiryas Joel, or something, which, given that I am a more Modern Orthodox, I really don't feel the need to do. But Jews that live among Gentiles do generally have secular names that serve as legal names.

[JRowe]

Forced assimilation shouldn't be the only recourse. If employers can't deal with non-white sounding names, that's their problem, and the person with that name shouldn't be expected to change for something that's far from their fault. It's an option, sure: it's not a solution. People who are proud of their cultural identity are so admired by America, right up until they stop being white.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I am not saying anyone should be forced to do anything. But it might be an option Black mothers can consider, just like Jewish mothers consider when naming their babies.

[garygreen]

Actually, we do. I have a Hebrew name, which I use for all religious purposes, and a secular name, which is my legal name. I use it on my driver license, my debit card, etc. My Hebrew name is Ya'akov ben Avraham. My legal name is a typically boring English sounding name. Obviously I am not going to reveal it here.

Only in Israel would my Hebrew name become my official name. Although I am an Orthodox Jew, the only way my Hebrew name in the USA would be my legal name is if I changed my name legally, which I wouldn't do unless I felt the need to move into some place like Kiryas Joel, or something, which, given that I am a more Modern Orthodox, I really don't feel the need to do. But Jews that live among Gentiles do generally have secular names that serve as legal names.

If I'm a journalist named Ezra Klein, shouldn't my work be evaluated on its merit and not on how Jewy my name sounds?

I feel like you're missing the point entirely.  Jewish culture is distinctive.  Setting aside the silly notion that Jews don't have a set of culturally identifiable monikers, Mr. Abraham Weingoldbergstein, I have a hard time believing that you wouldn't decry the notion that Jewish communities are any less entitled to participate in the economy because of that distinctiveness.

[Thork]

The abbos were conquered. They have undergone assimilation by their new overlords. They either adapt and become Australians, or they carry on running about naked with spears away from major towns and cities. They should not be asking for special representation. They should only expect the same representation as everyone else (Tony Abbott).

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

In an ideal world, I would agree with you, wholeheartedly. On a purely personal level, I DO agree with you. Its just that, frankly, I think it more practical to acknowledge reality in some cases, that's all. The world is not ideal, and not everybody agrees with Mr. Ya'akov ben Avraham or Mr. Gary Green. And look, mine is only an opinion. Its hardly the law of the land. What I suggest is my suggestion, not law. Two persons should name their baby what they like.

THORK, that's taking it too far. I do believe that people have the right to have their culture respected and supported. But in terms of assimilating to society, I think it might be wise of them to consider some steps to take in a personal direction, that is all.

EDIT: Weingoldbergstein. Creative, I'll admit. And yes, you are right. Most, not all, Ashkenazi Jews have names that, even when they are not Hebrew, are something Yiddish sounding. I have a friend named Leonard. Now that is normal enough. But his last name is Goldstein. Now he has a Hebrew name, but even without using it, he still is noticeably Jewish. As are a lot of Ashkenazi Jews.

[JRowe]

People should not be judged on their name. Certainly some people do decide to alter their names; and that's their choice. However, the fact that certain names are, due to racial origin, perceived negatively, should be all it takes for it to be admitted something needs to be done.

Thork, it is not asking for special representation to ask not to have their culture and way of life eliminated. If someone's got a gun to your head, a passer-by shouldn't shoot you both just for equal treatment.