Academic stirs fight over race

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Academic stirs fight over race
By Tim Dick
July [email protected] 2005

Macquarie University is standing by a senior academic who opposes non-white immigration, arguing that academics must be free to say what they wish, while also distancing itself from his views and declaring racism abhorrent.

An associate professor in the Department of Public Law, Andrew Fraser, claims that African migration increases crime, says HSC results point to a rising ruling class of Asians and wants Australia to withdraw from refugee conventions to avoid becoming "a colony of the Third World".

Associate Professor Fraser, originally from Canada, believes cognitive and athletic abilities, testosterone and "impulse control" vary according to race, and "civilisations" should look after their own.

The university said yesterday it was "distancing" itself from Associate Professor Fraser's views but backed the right of academics to say what they wish in a "responsible" way.

The acting Vice-Chancellor, Professor John Loxton, said there was no place for racism at the university, but it "recognises and protects academic freedom as essential to the conduct of teaching, research and scholarship".

After seeing a photograph of a Sudanese child in the Parramatta Sun, Associate Professor Fraser wrote to the newspaper saying "an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems".

"The fact is that ordinary Australians are being pushed down the path to national suicide by their own political, religious and economic elites."

Associate Professor Fraser wrote in an email to a Woollahra councillor, David Shoebridge, that Chinese immigration directly threatened the "social, political and economic interests of ordinary Australians and their children".

"Look at the annual HSC results - the consequence of which is that Oz is creating a new heavily Asian managerial-professional, ruling class that will feel no hesitation … in promoting the narrow interests of their co-ethnics at the expense of white Australians."

Associate Professor Fraser told the Herald it was only the "educated middle class" who opposed his views. "I think most ordinary people would find what I'm saying more or less self-evident," he said.

Source: SMH

I always new Macquarie Uni is a shithole...

I've bolded the most ridiculous parts.

Gotta love how "ordinary Australians" is a euphemism for "White Australians."

I fail to see fow unfounded, unsupportable racist claims are supporting the research etc. of academia. I mean, this shit would never be published in a peer-reviewed journal; so why the hell does the university support him saying this?

I mean, the perspective is so ahistorical. He supports his claim that black Africans are 'subhuman' by citing the state of Africa today. Not that the legacy of colonialism and oppression, combined with current oppression have ANYTHING to do with that at all.

:angry:

The worst part of this is, I know many people in this country support these views. I mean, look how many people voted One Nation...

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 19 2005, 12:43 PM
Not that the legacy of colonialism and oppression, combined with current oppression have ANYTHING to do with that at all.
You're right there; it doesn't have anything to do with it. Africa has never been any different throughout its history (with few exceptions).

[TheKingOfMercy]

I fail to see fow unfounded, unsupportable racist claims are supporting the research etc. of academia. I mean, this shit would never be published in a peer-reviewed journal; so why the hell does the university support him saying this?


I got the impression that the university was supporting his right to say it. Everyone has a right to speak their mind.


I mean, the perspective is so ahistorical. He supports his claim that black Africans are 'subhuman' by citing the state of Africa today. Not that the legacy of colonialism and oppression, combined with current oppression have ANYTHING to do with that at all.

Find me a link to where he said subhuman, as opposed to 'racially different', and then, in your imperious wisdom, explain how colonialism and historical oppression make an entire continent subhuman. Or is that a really bad generalisation you just made ?

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jul 19 2005, 01:24 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jul 19 2005, 01:24 PM)
Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 19 2005, 12:43 PM
Not that the legacy of colonialism and oppression, combined with current oppression have ANYTHING to do with that at all.
You're right there; it doesn't have anything to do with it. Africa has never been any different throughout its history (with few exceptions). [/b]

Actually Africa had plenty of thriving civilisations.

Ooh, and if you went back to Europe 200 years ago, the same thing could be applied to it...


TheKingOfMercy

I got the impression that the university was supporting his right to say it. Everyone has a right to speak their mind.
The are supporting his right to say it, that's what I said. The thing is, it brings the university into disrepute AND I'm sure will turn foreign students away from Macquarie University.


Find me a link to where he said subhuman, as opposed to 'racially different', and then, in your imperious wisdom, explain how colonialism and historical oppression make an entire continent subhuman. Or is that a really bad generalisation you just made ?
Well I've watched TV interviews where he basically said that Africans aren't as intelligent etc. Subhuman may have been a little exagerration on my part, but you're just nitpicking... The point is that he suggests, or rather FLAT out states that non-whites are inferior. You can't dodge that.

My imperious wisdom? :rolleyes: My aren't you witty.

And I never said that colonialism and oppression made a continent subhuman, learn to read. I said that those things are in large part responsible for where Africa is today, failed states and civil wars etc.

Someone remind me why I posted this in this forum? :P

[TheKingOfMercy]

QUOTE
Find me a link to where he said subhuman, as opposed to 'racially different', and then, in your imperious wisdom, explain how colonialism and historical oppression make an entire continent subhuman. Or is that a really bad generalisation you just made ?

Well I've watched TV interviews where he basically said that Africans aren't as intelligent etc. Subhuman may have been a little exagerration on my part, but you're just nitpicking... The point is that he suggests, or rather FLAT out states that non-whites are inferior. You can't dodge that.

My imperious wisdom? rolleyes.gif My aren't you witty.

And I never said that colonialism and oppression made a continent subhuman, learn to read. I said that those things are in large part responsible for where Africa is today, failed states and civil wars etc.

Aye true, Perhaps if the guy had used slightly better terms such as 'uneducated' and 'maltreated' we wouldn't have such a problem with his speech ?. I'm sure that they have the same base intelligence as any white-man, but aren't given the opportunity to train to use it. Again, he used bad terminology, or was just being a racist fuck, tis up the individual to decide that one.

He does state that non-whites are inferior, that aint bad terminology, he can burn in hell for that one.

You are right of course, the combined legacy of colonialism, liberalism/leftists, rampant dictators and the UN is the mess Africa is in today, and he ignored all that in favour of blaming the inhabitants themselves, this be another nail in his proverbial coffin.

Tis interesting, if he'd said that in Britain, the Politically Correct types would have nailed him up and let the crows have his eyes out. Perhaps allowing him to say that is Australia's way of being more tolerant to other opinions ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 20 2005, 07:32 AM
Actually Africa had plenty of thriving civilisations.
Name them.


Ooh, and if you went back to Europe 200 years ago, the same thing could be applied to it...

No it couldn't. It is arguable that people living 200 years ago in Europe lived in better conditions than most Africans do today. Probably because they began to abandon religion and tribalism whereas Africa has yet to learn its lesson.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 20 2005, 01:32 AM
Actually Africa had plenty of thriving civilisations.

Ooh, and if you went back to Europe 200 years ago, the same thing could be applied to it...
Eh...parts of Europe were pretty backward 200 years ago, sure. Kinda tribal, even, in parts of Ireland, Scotland, and Scandinavia.

But I think you're falling into a trap here: in order to disprove theories of racial superiority and inferiority, you're trying to prove that the development of civilisation has been at least roughly equivalent in all parts of the world.

Clearly it hasn't - to give one example, agriculture was developed in Mesopotamia several thousand years ago, spread relatively rapidly west to South Europe and North Africa and east to China, but still wasn't practiced in the southernmost tip of Africa when the Dutch arrived there. (And more broadly, few places in sub-Saharan Africa reached a level of economic and social development equivalent to many civilizations in Eurasia.)

But that doesn't prove racial inferiority of Africans, as Prof. Fraser claims....significantly, he's a professor of Public Law, not biology. Nor does China's long history of advanced civilisation prove their racial superiority, as Fraser seems to fear.

Rather, nobody was sowing crops in the Cape because sorghum and other tropical crops, which the agricultural, cattle-raising Bantu tribes took with 'em on their southward migration, wouldn't grow in that climate (south of the Fish River). And wheat, barley, etc. weren't particularly suitable for the lands inbetween, so it never diffused to there. The diffusion of crops and livestock southward across Africa, across changing latitudes and therefore radically different climates, was slower than east-west across Eurasia anyway. (Crops and livestock had to adapt to each climate zone.) Nor was there much if any direct trade with anyplace growing wheat 'til Europeans sailed there.

If you read Guns, Germs, and Steel by biologist Jared Diamond, he thoroughly explains the history of civilization, including the different levels of development, in terms of differences like that one. He explicitly wrote it to disprove racist conclusions drawn from differences in levels of development...which are widely held even by people who don't state 'em openly. And to answer a question which New Guinean cargo-cult leader Yali asked him when he was young, "Why do Europeans have so much cargo, and New Guineans so little?" It turned out to be not so simple to answer...

Moneybags wrote:
" Probably because they began to abandon religion and tribalism whereas Africa has yet to learn its lesson."

What kind of moronic crap is this? You think that tribal society in Europe ended, and religion weakened, because people learned some lesson, i.e. they just decided to have a different kind of society? No. If you were capable of thought, I'd recommend Diamond's book for you, too.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:40 PM
Eh...parts of Europe were pretty backward 200 years ago, sure. Kinda tribal, even, in parts of Ireland, Scotland, and Scandinavia.


Which renforces my point. The places that weren't backward didn't engage in "kinda tribal" stuff.


What kind of moronic crap is this? You think that tribal society in Europe ended, and religion weakened, because people learned some lesson, i.e. they just decided to have a different kind of society? No.

Ever heard of the renaissance ? What did that produce, if not a "different kind of society" ?