http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/time-to-allay-fears-with-facts/story-e6frg6zo-1225826075895

How is the existence of a xenophobic Facebook group proof of structural racism ?

2010: People who don’t speak English!
2000: Postmodernism!
1990: Saddam!
1980: Commies!
1970: Vietnamese Commies!
1960: Contraception!
1955: Rock ‘n Roll Music!
1950: Korean Commies!
1946: Nylon Stockings!
1940: Nylon Stockings worn by Gestapo!
1930: Botulism!
1920: Automobiles!
1910: Electric lights!
1900: Immoral messages sent by telegraph!

Get the picture?

The difference is while some people view this in a national context, seeing the Indians as a minority, others view this in a global context and see Australians as a minority.

Desipsis, every nationality is a minority “in a global context”. What’s your point?

The only majorities “in a global context” are female (50.1%), heterosexual (80-90%ish depending on how and what you count) and human (100%). Every other ethnicity, religion, language group, lifestyle or political outlook are minorities.

Except possibly ‘xenophobe’.

Please explain, desipis.

I was just using the English and education points as examples to show that the perception of risk in “Speak English or Piss Off” showed that the perception was quite divorced from the reality. I see the work around for that one of education, communication, exposure, open language. Not appeasement for example.

I’ve read all of this group, all of the previous posts on racism and give it serious pause. It is more than language – there is basic psychology in terms of fear of the other that extends across species. There are layers of response and meaning that have their response in language and behaviour. Risk is a useful way to think about it.

Your last comment is puzzling – Australians in a minority? Is this a resurfacing of the fear of the yellow hordes? I’m not reflecting this back on you. It’s seen in some of the US rhetoric to China for instance. What do you think is the best way to work through these?

There are fears (i.e., perceived risks) that have a logical basis and fears that don’t (though it’s not easy to distinguish one from ther other). I’m saying that how these are acknowledged and communicated is different. And those that do not have a logical basis should not be appeased, although they can be acknowledged. If you think I’m being less than honest, that is your problem.

Most Indian students either know English or are studying it or both. Australia has very good ESL capacities in the public education sector, for instance.

We also have anti-discrimination legislation, so that racism problem is solved right? Perhaps if you’d spent all of a minute reading the group you’d have realised that it’s more than just about language.

So Desipis, are you being provocative in the Athenian teacher mode to draw a considered response from the hoi polloi, or just being provocative?

I was hoping that people might make an honest attempt to understand the ‘other side’, but obviously that was expecting too much (from you at least). If you had you might have realised that there is a common theme of a minority being under threat from a majority. The difference is while some people view this in a national context, seeing the Indians as a minority, others view this in a global context and see Australians as a minority.

Apparently Shane Warne is going to meet with Brumby to talk about the issue. I have no idea what he thinks. Celebrity power also seems to work.

‘Speak English or Piss Off!’

Hmmm, and holders of that sensitive disposition are at risk … how?!?

Most Indian students either know English or are studying it or both. Australia has very good ESL capacities in the public education sector, for instance.

That comes back to this: if there is a perception that cannot be justified according to the available evidence and reasonable interpretations of that evidence, then communication and further analysis needs to counter that perception.

Fear of strangers or the other is a feature of primate groups, including humans. It has outlived its evolutionary utility and should not be a feature promoted in civil society.

It’s not helped by dog-whistling politicians, sensationalist media and the assertion that free speech means that all public comments are of equal value.

So Desipis, are you being provocative in the Athenian teacher mode to draw a considered response from the hoi polloi, or just being provocative?