Monday, July 17, 2017

Census 2016: Australia the world's least racist country?

A small note on the Chinese in Australia.  Salty Bernard below says we have 510,000 Chinese-born residents. That is both true and misleading.  The China-born persons of Han Chinese origin are probably only half of the total Han Chinese immigrants.  Many of the people from Vietnam and Malaysia particularly are Han Chinese by ancestry and know it.  Additionally many have been in Australia for a long time now and have children and grandchildren born here.  So the number of Australian born Han could well be greater than the number born overseas. 

I repeatedly in my daily life come across people of unmistakeably Han ancestry who speak Australian English as well as I do: They have obviously grown up here.  So I estimate that there are around 2 million Australians of Han ancestry, which makes the total population around 5% Han.  We are lucky to have so many bright, hard working and peaceful people among us.

So the Han give demographers a few problems.  The "Overseas" Chinese who have come to Australia from Southest Asia identify strongly as Han so for most purposes should be lumped in with the China-born Han. 

But an upcoming process will create even greater definitional difficulties.  Young Han women in Australia are generally short in stature and seem to be universally determined to marry a tall man.  And if a tall Han man cannot be found a tall Caucasian man will do.  In my observation, that is actually universal.  Young Han women ALWAYS have a tall man with them if they have anyone at all. They know how to get what they want.  Looking at it from the other way, around 50% of tall Caucasian men will have a little Asian lady on their arms if any. That will undoubtedly produce a large crop of Eurasian children in the not too distant future.  How will the demographers classify them?

The phenomenon I have just described also does pretty well as an indication that neither Han nor Caucasian Australians are racist.  In the Bogardus scale of social distance, marriage is the highest level of non-racism -- JR

Australian migrants have to really want to come to this country. We are not like Europe or Africa or the Americas where migrants can trek from one country to another across a land border. And Australia isn’t conveniently positioned between continents teeming with humanity. We’re a bit out of the way … in fact we’re a long way out of the way. Which means that if migrants do decide to make the journey to Australia, then getting back to see family and friends is difficult. I think our isolation, the tyranny of distance, delivers an urgency to the Aussie migrant’s yearning for success.

Come to Australia, mate, work hard, pay your taxes, make a civic contribution, perhaps raise a family and share in the resources of our bountiful continent. Large-scale migration shapes the culture of the host population. Migrants lift the bar; they have something to prove; they measure their success by the success of their children (and often set up by the exceptionally hard work of the migrating parents). Without migration Australia would have remained a white Anglo enclave, a colonial outpost of Britain. Migrant effort, energy, enterprise and muscle have shaped this nation and changed the way we eat (pasta), style our homes (back veranda is now alfresco) and greet each other (cheek kissing) along the way.

All of which leads me to conclude that Australia is the greatest migrant nation on earth. And here is why I believe we can make that claim. According to the latest census figures 28 per cent of the Australian population was born overseas, up two percentage points in the past five years. This proportion in the US, Britain and Spain is barely 13 per cent. Only New Zealand (25 per cent) and Canada (20 per cent) come close to the Australian figures.

If we include residents with at least one parent born overseas then this proportion rises to 49 per cent. Or at least this was the proportion last August; by now we probably have topped the 50 per cent mark. There are more than 6.1 million migrants living in Australia — up 870,000 from the 2011 census — which represents an increase of 174,000 per year.

In Greater Melbourne, Perth and Sydney migrants comprise between 36 per cent and 39 per cent of the population (and even higher proportions in tighter definitions of these cities). This proportion in Greater New York is 37 per cent, in Paris it is 25 per cent, in Berlin it is 13 per cent, in Tokyo it is 2 per cent and in Shanghai it is less than 1 per cent. The Germans get all angsty when Berlin pushes much beyond the 13 per cent mark; Greater Sydney is sitting at 39 per cent and rising. And if we again include local residents with at least one parent born overseas, then 65 per cent of Sydney’s population is a migrant or closely connected to the migrant experience.

I do not see how anyone can credibly make the case that Australians are fundamentally racist — racist incidents perhaps, but not fundamentally racist — when close to 40 per cent of the population in our biggest city consists of migrants. If Australians had a fundamental problem with migrants then the issue would have been brought to a head long before Sydney got to be a more cosmopolitan city than New York.

There is no rioting in our streets. Generally we all get along. There are, of course, serious issues that we are dealing with in regard to refugees. However, I cannot cite another nation with metrics even approaching Australia’s generosity in accepting migrants.

Australia’s largest migrant groups are the British (1.088 million) and New Zealanders (518,000). The Brits arrived en masse after World War II as “ten-pound Poms”, while enterprising New Zealanders have always sought to test their mettle in the bigger market of Australia. However, through the 2020s it is likely that there will be a switch in our largest migrant populations. The Brits are dying off and the recovery of the New Zealand economy has stemmed the flow of Kiwis.

The rising migrant forces in Australia are unmistakably Asian. The latest census counted 510,000 Chinese-born residents, increasing at a rate of 38,000 a year, which means they probably already have surpassed the Kiwis as Australia’s second largest migrant group. Then come the Indians with 455,000, increasing at a rate of 32,000 a year. Then there are the Filipinos with 232,000 and the Vietnamese with 219,000.

The Chinese are our leading source of new migrants; they probably have replaced the Kiwis as our leading source of visitors; they form the largest body of overseas students; and China is our leading export market and source of imports. I think it’s time we made Mandarin a compulsory second language in the school curriculum. Indeed I think it is in the national interest for Australians to understand some Mandarin (and at times in business not to let on that we understand some Mandarin).

There are migrant hotspots in every major city, especially among non-English-speaking settlers. The Chinese make up 9 per cent of the population in Hobart’s Sandy Bay. In Darwin’s Coconut Grove Filipino migrants comprise 10 per cent of the population. In Brisbane the Chinese comprise 23 per cent of the population in Macgregor, Indians cluster in Runcorn (9 per cent) and the Vietnamese congregate in Inala, where they comprise 20 per cent of the population. In Adelaide, for some reason English migrants love McLaren Vale where they account for 15 per cent of the population.

Generally British and New Zealand migrants integrate seamlessly into the Australian social fabric. Contrary to popular opinion New Zealanders do not dominate the Sydney suburb of Bondi, where they form just 3.4 per cent of the population. In fact the newest Kiwi enclave is a long way from hip Bondi; it’s Marsden in suburban Brisbane, where they form 13 per cent of the population. The Brits do congregate, but mostly as retirees in lifestyle locations such as Melbourne’s Mount Martha where they also comprise 13 per cent of the population.

The migrant component to the Australian population swishes and swirls to every nook and cranny on the continent. I say this imbues Australians with a global perspective not found elsewhere. We have developed an absorbent culture that soaks up and showcases migrant influences. Perhaps because we are so removed we see overseas and cosmopolitan influences as a mark of sophistication. Quinoa salad, anyone? ....

Which brings me to a final observation about Australia’s migrants. They make the journey to Australia to secure a better life for themselves and their families.

And in so doing I think they make choices based on work availability and perceived quality of life. Sydney may offer the next generation of migrants work opportunities in financial services, but it is the first generation that wants to buy a home, perhaps as a symbol of their success in the new world. And when you think about it, this aspiration to work and to own a home aligns nicely with fundamental Australian values.


An Unhinged Linda Sarsour Lashes Out at the “Zionist Media”

Those of us following the news were unfortunately subjected to an unhealthy dose of Linda Sarsour this week. The self-promoting, egomaniacal, anti-Semite managed to deliberately stir a hornet’s nest with use of inflammatory rhetoric at a Muslim conference. In an address before the Islamic Society of North America, she called for a “Jihad” in the name of “Allah” against the Trump administration and encouraged her Muslim Brotherhood audience members (ISNA was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land-Hamas terror financing case) “not to assimilate and…not to please any other people and authority.”

Sasour, the crafty manipulator, then used the subsequent firestorm to insert herself into the news and the Washington Post provided her with a platform to spew her venomous propaganda. She penned an article where she claimed to have been “taken out of context,” feigned victimhood (victimizers are good at doing that) and termed those who criticized her, “Islamophobes.”

In Linda Sarsour’s world, those critical of her rancid views and actions – her support for BDS, her embrace of a convicted murderer, her tribalism and outright anti-Semitism and her desire to remove the vaginas of women with whom she finds disagreement – are branded “Islamophobes.” Sarsour then went on to give herself a gold star for being “their worst nightmare.” By “their” she meant “Islamophobes,” and by Islamophobes, she means everyone who disagrees with her, including those in the center-left camp (yes, they still exist).

The late Christopher Hitchens perceptively noted that the term “Islamophobic” is one that “was created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.” Sarsour’s banal employment of this dangerous and disingenuous term proves Hitchens’ point beyond any shadow of a doubt.

But Sarsour is a fraud. She claims to be a civil rights activist but is an anti-Semite. She preaches non-violence but encourages violence against Israelis. She claims to represent the feminist movement but advocates for Sharia which oppresses women, and bizarrely touts Saudi Arabia – a nation that forbids women drivers and punishes rape victims – as a nation that protects women’s rights. She claims to be an advocate for the LGBTQIA (she’s always careful to insert the “QIA” part) community but has yet to condemn the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Iran, Saudi Arabia or any Muslim country for their abysmal treatment of their respective LGBT communities.

Yet amazingly, Sarsour manages to find the time to relentlessly criticize Israel, the Mideast’s only democracy, and a nation that empowers women and provides statutory protections for its LGBT citizenry.

Sarsour may also be a fraud for other reasons. According to a report by the Algemeiner, in February and March, Sarsour and Tarek El-Messidi, founder of the non-profit Islamic education organization Celebrate Mercy, partnered in an online campaign to raise money for vandalized or neglected Jewish cemeteries. How benevolent of Sarsour to collect money for dead Jews but at the same time, advocate violence against living ones.

The duo raised a total of raised $162,468, $50,000 of which was channeled to three cemeteries. $100,000 was pledged to a Jewish cemetery in Lakewood, Colorado that had fallen into severe disrepair but the money has yet to be delivered and the cemetery’s caretaker told the Algemeiner that his repeated calls to El-Messidi have gone unanswered. He does not believe that the promised funds will be forthcoming. That begs the question, where has the remaining $112,468 gone?

In response to the exposé, an unhinged Sarsour lashed out against the Algemeiner calling it “a right wing Zionist media outlet.” She also threatened legal action stating that those who inflicted “trauma” on her with these “propaganda campaigns” will “pay with their pockets.” Sarsour also tried to deflect responsibility and diminish her role by noting that “the money is being administered by [El-Messidi’s] Celebrate Mercy NOT me.” Finally Sarsour claimed that El-Messidi was “awaiting a proposal from the cemetery for potential costs so they can be allocated...” But that response doesn't explain why the caretaker's repeated phone calls to El-Messidi went unanswered. If El-Messidi was indeed awaiting some form of proposal, one would think he would have communicated this requirement to the designated donee.

This isn’t the first time that Sarsour has run afoul of an online crowd-funding campaign. In June, she commenced an online funding campaign for “sister Rahma,” a Somali Muslim woman who sustained injuries during a confused melee in Columbus Ohio. The rabblerousing Sarsour implied that the attack was inspired by racial and ethnic bias and made sure to identify the alleged attacker as white.

Sarsour’s account varied significantly from other witnesses at the scene who said that Rahma was part of a group of individuals who attacked a woman who was trying to intervene on behalf of an abused child. Columbus police said they could not make an arrest “due to the lack of physical evidence and conflicting stories.”

Yet Sarsour and her long-time partner in crime, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, (CAIR was also named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case) saw an opportunity to create some fake news. They had no problem with creating hoaxes and further fanning the flames of racial discord in an effort to maintain relevancy. It’s good for business.

Linda Sarsour has thrust herself into the spotlight through clever self-promotion and manipulation. But make no mistake; Sarsour is as rancid as she is dangerous. She is the David Duke of the left. But despite her odious views, the American Civil Liberties Union and other left-wing groups of similar ilk absurdly continue to stand by her. Anti-Semitism emanating from the hard-right is rightfully condemned but for some inexplicable reason, anti-Semitism emanating from the hard-left is given a free pass or largely ignored.

In February, American Conservative Union executive director Dan Schneider unequivocally condemned the so-called Alt-Right and its leaders in harsh and unambiguous terms. He accurately characterized its leaders as racist, sexist and anti-Semitic. The time has come for those on the center-left to emulate their colleagues on the center-right. They must discard their craven attitudes and issue a full-throated repudiation of Linda Sarsour and the evil that she embodies.    


Is Silicon Valley really rife with sexism?

Silicon Valley has long been synonymous with innovative technology. The Hollywood image is of a place where geeky coders become glamorous millionaires. However, in recent years, a different image of Silicon Valley has emerged — one of a toxic environment for women.

Cases like that of Susan Fowler, whose complaints of sexual harassment and discrimination at Uber prompted an internal investigation, have received a huge of amount of press coverage. In another case, AJ Vandermeyden, a female engineer at Tesla, was fired after she filed a lawsuit against the company for ‘pervasive harassment’. She reported catcalls on the factory floor and claims less or equally qualified male colleagues were promoted over her. These cases, and others, have triggered allegations from numerous other women over the past couple of months.

The New York Times says more than 24 women have told it they are victims of sexual harassment, citing examples of women being touched by advisers and investors and receiving messages of sexual advances. Last month, Binary Capital co-founder and managing partner Justin Caldbeck announced he was taking an indefinite leave of absence, after allegations of sexual harassment were made against him. And Dave McClure, CEO and co-founder of 500 Startups, who faced similar accusations, penned an apologetic blog post titled: ‘I’m a creep, I’m sorry.’ A few days later he resigned from his post.

Many of the accusations make for uncomfortable reading. Some women claim to have been subjected to unwanted kissing and groping, while others talk about a constant stream of inappropriate and sexist comments. The allegations have also prompted a wider discussion on the situation for women working in tech; about the low numbers of women, especially at management levels, and the possibility of an unconscious bias against women.

In its report, the New York Times said ‘the new accounts underscore how sexual harassment in the tech-startup ecosystem goes beyond one firm and is pervasive and ingrained’. An article in the Guardian was headlined, ‘Sexual harassment in Silicon Valley: have we reached a tipping point?’. But we should be wary of accepting at face value claims that sexism and sexual harassment are endemic in the tech industry.

First, while many allegations have been made, they have not been proved. The cases that have been highlighted name a handful of tech or investor companies in Silicon Valley. There are thousands of companies there and new start-ups are constantly launching. And not all of the allegations that have gone to trial have held up. Ellen Pao took her former employer, venture firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers, to court for allegations of gender discrimination in 2015. She lost. Bizarrely, this lost case has still been lauded for opening the ‘floodgates’ to allegations of gender bias in Silicon Valley. FEM, UCLA’s feminist magazine, published an article titled, ‘Why the Ellen Pao verdict was actually a win for women in tech’.

The Pao case also inspired the widely cited ‘Elephant in the Valley’ survey, which claimed 60 per cent of women in Silicon Valley had experienced sexual harassment, and 88 per cent had experienced unconscious bias. But this survey isn’t all it seems. ‘Unconscious bias’ is, in part, defined as ‘eye contact with male colleagues and not me’. Only 210 women took part in the survey — and it appears far from impartial. The survey was carried out by seven women working in the industry with the stated aim of proving the existence of sexism. ‘What we realised is that while many women shared similar workplace stories [to that of Ellen Pao]’, the women wrote, ‘most men were simply shocked and unaware of the issues facing women in the workplace. In an effort to correct the massive information disparity, we decided to get the data and the stories.’ The women invited to take part in the survey were business contacts of the women who launched the survey.

Other studies claiming gender bias in Silicon Valley have also been criticised. Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO, disputed claims from a former Facebook engineer that computer code written by female Facebook engineers is rejected 35 per cent more than code written by men. Sandberg said the study used ‘incomplete data’ and ‘the main reason code was sent back had to do with [the] level, not gender [of the engineer]’.

Silicon Valley has also been attacked for its ‘lack of diversity’ — that is, not employing enough women. Certainly the figures show there are far fewer women than men employed by tech startups and venture capitalists. Facebook reports that 17 per cent of its technical staff are women. But this doesn’t necessarily translate into some kind of anti-women agenda in the industry. Research psychologist Denise Cummins has said that the STEM gender gap is overblown. In an article published on PBS, Cummins points out that there is gender equity in almost all STEM subjects in terms of women studying for degrees and in employment. ‘Women are as likely as men to be biological scientists, medical scientists and chemists’, she says. Computer science is just one of two exceptions.

If some women are experiencing sexist treatment or harassment in Silicon Valley, then of course that is an issue that must be addressed. But we should be careful before suggesting this amounts to an industry-wide problem when there isn’t evidence to back it up.

The solutions being proposed to counter the supposed Silicon Valley sexism are also a worry. Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn co-founder, suggested venture capitalists (VCs) sign a ‘decency pledge’. In a blog post on LinkedIn he wrote that VCs should see their relationship with entrepreneurs as taking the same ‘moral position’ as ‘a college professor to a student’ – a statement which manages to be both creepy and infantilising to women.

Other women who have alleged sexual harassment have demanded more regulation of workplace relationships. This is a common theme with today’s feminists, who claim men and women cannot be trusted to interact without strict rules in place (an interesting parallel can be seen in the sex-consent classes on university campuses). Yet it is hard to see how regulation that will effectively give women a special status will help gender equality in the workplace.

We live in a climate where, when incidents of inequality arise, especially concerning women, we have a propensity to jump to conclusions that don’t quite add up. Tarring an entire industry with the same brush based on the actions of a few creeps is not helpful. It blurs the reality of the situation, and does nothing to help stamp out inequality where it does exist.


Obama Transgender Military Regs Put on Hold

“All Soldiers should be respectful of the privacy and modesty concerns of others. However, transgender Soldiers are not required or expected to modify or adjust their behavior based on the fact that they do not ‘match’ other Soldiers.” —2017 Army Training Manual on rules regarding personnel awaiting “gender reassignment” surgery.

Yes, this is in the latest U.S. Army regulation. Call it the “PFC Bradley (Chelsea) Manning Traitor Pardon” Rule. Not only did Barack Obama pardon Manning for sharing military secrets with WikiLeaks, doing more damage to our national security than any spy on record, but your tax dollars paid for his “gender reassignment” — while he was in prison awaiting Obama’s midnight pardon. Thanks Obama.

Fortunately, Defense Secretary James Mattis has pushed the reset button on implementing these new guidelines on transgender enlistment — at least for six months in order to allow for greater analysis of the potential impact on the readiness of the military. Mattis said, “Since becoming the secretary of defense, I have emphasized that the Department of Defense must measure each policy decision against one critical standard: Will the decision affect the readiness and lethality of the force?” He continued, “Put another way, how will the decision affect the ability of America’s military to defend the nation? It is against this standard that I provide the following guidance on the way forward in accessing transgender individuals into the military services.”

We think the answer to that is clear. Will Mattis and the military be able to withstand the upcoming withering barrage from the Rainbow Mafia?



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: