American Renaissance

Nurturing Prejudice a Matter of Nature

AR Articles on Australia/New Zealand
More news stories on Australia/New Zealand
Chee Chee Leung, Sydney Morning Herald, Jan. 28, 2008

For those with prejudices against migrants, it could be a result of believing in nature rather than nurture.

A Melbourne study has found people who think humans are characterised by their genes — rather than the environment — are less accepting of Asian immigrants. They believe people of Asian backgrounds will “always remain different” from other Australians, and prefer to keep a distance from such immigrants.

“These people believe that human differences are actually to do with biology,” said a University of Melbourne researcher, Brock Bastian. “They tend to think that people can’t change very easily, and that tends to lead to prejudice towards immigrants coming into the country.”

But the reverse also held true. Migrants who believe they are biologically different are less likely to integrate into Australian society. Dr Bastian, a behavioural scientist, said such a view could lead to second-generation migrants finding appeal in extremist groups — if they felt alienated from their ethnic identity as well as the Australian one.

“It leaves them without any strong attachments, so when you have groups that are offering very clear and strong identities … they become quite attractive.”

The study was based on surveys of 137 Australian-born people and 101 migrants.

Dr Bastian, who conducted the research with Associate Professor Nick Haslam, said he hoped understanding of what drove prejudice might help in developing ways to make the migrant experience easier. The research has been accepted for publication in the Asian Journal of Social Psychology.

Original article

(Posted on January 30, 2008)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment      Search

Comments


Only people who lie to themselves and others could say they don’t see race and its associated behavior.

“These people believe that human differences are actually to do with biology”

So a poodle can be a pit bull?

Posted by sbuffalonative at 4:55 PM on January 30


“They” believe in biology. For a political ideology that supposedly eschews us-versus-them mentality, the left loves to classify those who disagree with them on the issue of nature vs nurture as “them,” as if “they” might as well have just landed from the planet crouton in a flying saucer, and have eighteen antennae sticking up from their reverse conical faces.

Note also here the usual bromide that white “prejudice” is the cause of non-white failure.

Posted by St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister at 5:04 PM on January 30


Complete bull. Contact with minorities is what causes prejudice…..experience. I’m a good example. In my youth, I was a liberal. A true believer. Contact with minorities as I grew to adulthood, changed all that. Today, I consider myself a racial realist. But most people would characterize me as a hard core racist. Those people are ignorant.

Funny thing though. The more time goes by, the more people I come into contact with that are just like me. Same pattern of change. And I live in one of the most liberal areas of the USA. Whites are awakening to racial consciousness I think…..and quickly. 9/11 seems to have been the catalyst.

Posted by at 6:06 PM on January 30


Ummm…so we’re still pretending that biology has NOTHING to do with racial differences. Riiiight, I guess you can’t be expecting too much from a social science (pyschology) journal these days…

Posted by whiteculturewarrior at 6:12 PM on January 30


The evidence is a survey involving fewer than 250 people. This is what passes for science these days??!?

Posted by David W. at 6:29 PM on January 30


Now that is interesting. A university in the U.S. (Stanford?) recently claimed that people who believe that homosexuality is genetic were more welcoming of them than those who do not.

Should this not apply to immigrants also because they are different than us?

Posted by A. Windaus at 1:54 AM on January 31


Social “Science” rarely qualifies as science.

Posted by at 3:47 AM on January 31


“These people believe that human differences are actually to do with biology,”

Such people must be absolutly insane! How could biology have anything to do with how life forms behave? That’s pure heresy.. I mean hate! Burned the hereti.. ah I mean hater!

Long live Babylon!

Posted by Skeptikos at 4:19 AM on January 31



There are experiments in social science (and common sense, real life experience) that people who are in close contact will form friendships and deeper relationships. It’s all common sense; you will make friends with the people you’re around, not the people who live and work miles from where you live and work.

This has been the theory behind integration; that if we could force blacks and whites to have contact with each other that they’d discover how much they have in common.

Only this theory (and the reality) do not take into account the all too real biological expressions of race. Blacks and whites think and act differently. Certainly there is overlap but the larger numbers show our differences, not similarities.

Being around blacks does not endear me to them. Just the opposite. I come to despise their different behavior. Being around greater numbers of blacks just strengthens my conviction that we are incompatible because of race. No theory, wishful thinking, or ‘dream’ is going to change that.

Posted by sbuffalonative at 9:52 AM on January 31


“The more time goes by, the more people I come into contact with that are just like me. Same pattern of change.”

Posted at 6:06 PM

I’ve noticed the same pattern as the 6:06 poster. Like myself, a lot of the people I know who are racial realists started thinking that way around their second semester freshman to junior years of college. It must be all the “diversity” crammed down their throats on campus and the anti-white demagogues that we were forced to listen to over and over again. A lot of people in the X and Y gens just aren’t buying it anymore.

Posted by at 11:11 AM on January 31


This is completely incorrect. I find it’s liberals who equate behavior with biology. The media is filled with this intellectually oppressive jargon everyday. It wasn’t conservatives who declared endless syndromes like alcoholism; ‘diseases’, mental illness hereditary, Ritalin and Prozac prescriptions for millions for chemical-imbalances and homosexuality a product of birth, etc ad infinity.

Posted by Absorber at 8:53 PM on January 31


It is certainly experience rather than prejudice that makes people racialist, and I mean racialist rather than racist as it recognises different races have different qualities rather than a blind hatred of all. For example I come from a very white background and went to an almost all-white university. I had very little contact with blacks. I became involved in “anti-racist” campaigning and this took me to areas where blacks, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Somalis etc were large minorities or majorities. I didn’t like what I saw in terms of behaviour and way of life. At first I dismissed it as an unrepresentative sample. Then I thought perhaps it was just poverty.

But what led to this poverty? The Marxists explained it as systematic discrimination and opression by whites, but I could see little evidence of this. How exactly did whites oppress non-whites? The Marxists would point out high rates of non-whites in prison and non-white children being expelled disproportionately from school. But I could see no evidence that the police and courts were sending innocent non-whites to prison en mass or teachers were expelling black children for behaviour that white children were excused for. So the supposed mechanism for white oppression appeared to be simply a symptom of racial differences. Further, East Asians performed similarly to, if not better than whites. Why were these supposed white racists picking on blacks and Pakistanis but not Chinese? It really made no sense from the Marxist perspective, however much I wanted to believe it, because it is an attractive fantasy.

As a biology student it also became absurd to me that scientists would readily accept the obvious that different breeds, populations or subspecies of plant or animal would show different behaviour and qualities and even that there are physical differences between human races in terms of development, susceptibility to disease, size, shape etc yet mental/behavioural characterics had to be exactly the same for all.

Posted by Ed at 8:48 AM on February 1


“As a biology student it also became absurd to me that scientists would readily accept the obvious that different breeds, populations or subspecies of plant or animal would show different behaviour and qualities and even that there are physical differences between human races in terms of development, susceptibility to disease, size, shape etc yet mental/behavioural characterics had to be exactly the same for all.”

Exactly. Everyone accepts this fact when talking about breeds of dogs. Everyone would agree that german shepherds and poodles, while both dogs, not only look different but have different abilities and behaviors. This is why the police use german shepherds, not poodles, as police dogs. Taking race out of it, we accept differences in abilities between individual people, so why is it so hard to accept the obvious, that different races overall have differences.

Posted by at 10:15 PM on February 1


The author’s name is Chee Chee Leung.

If you are non-white, and you want entry and acceptance to the white world, you downplay nature and promote nurture.

That’s the only way to get around the fact that you’re not white and can’t ever belong to the race.

Posted by at 1:01 AM on February 3


To whom it may concern, i posted the following yesterday and it’s not there, why not?

“The Marxists explained it as systematic discrimination and opression by whites, but I could see little evidence of this. How exactly did whites oppress non-whites?”

You’re joking right?

Let’s see: slavery, segregation, theft, genocide. Jesus, until recently non-whites couldn’t vote in the US. The non-white people who lived in the states up until 1500 have almost all been slaughtered, by…….. drumroll…… white europeans. The aborigine population of Australia was slaughtered by…… drumroll….. white europeans. The ENTIRE non-white population of Tazmania was wiped out by (i’ll spare you the drumroll) WHITE EUROPEANS (my countrymen no less).

So seriously, if you’re gonna go ahead with ridiculous claims that “races” are different and that blacks and native Americans need to keep to their own, go back to Africa and are inherently different/inferior than whites, then PLEASE consider the following. IF indeed races are separate and different then based on our track record, do you REALLY think white’s biological proper place is ruling this planet. White males are responsible for the following:
- All the wars that ever happened in Europe (most bloody continent hands down until we started invading the rest of the world)
- Colonial empires
- The attempted genocide of the Jews in WW2
- The near-successful genocide of the native American people
- The invention of advanced firearms
- The invention of the atom bomb
- The use of the atom bomb
- Deforestation
- Segregation
- The ridiculous situation in The middle east
- Most pollution issues
- Corporate slavery
- Chemical weaponry

A “racial group” (inverted comas coz I don’t really believe in such a thing) that has the above on their CV isn’t a good candidate for the position it currently holds: Ruling the planet. Oh and also, if you’re a white American and your policy on immigration is to “send ‘em back where they belong”, then please get back to Europe and leave the country to the natives.

If you bothered reading i thank you for your attention

peace to all

Posted by Tom at 3:59 PM on February 3



Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Search

Post a Comment

Commenting guidelines: We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. Statements of fact and well-considered opinion are welcome, but we will not post comments that include obscenities or insults, whether of groups or individuals. We reserve the right to hold our critics to lower standards.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)