Discuss How Race And Ethnicity Perpetuate Inequality In AustraliaEssay Preview: Discuss How Race And Ethnicity Perpetuate Inequality In AustraliaReport this essayWhen groups of people see themselves, or are perceived by others, to be racially distinct from the rest of a population, the question that arises is whether members of these groups are treated equally.
Politicians have long spoken of being a multicultural society, promoting tolerance and integration. Proud of a society where one can reap in financial or social status rewards through sheer hard work Ð- where the nature of ones race or ethnicity is not a factor. Bessant (2002) said racist attitudes are alive and well today. The concepts of Ðrace and Ðethnicity perpetuate inequality for people who are considered different from the dominant group. This essay will show how race and ethnicity are at a disadvantage to equally accessing resources in Australia, such as education, health, employment, housing and other life chances.
The term Ðrace is usually used to refer to specific groupings of people who share certain characteristics, the combinations of which allow them to be distinguished from other such groupings. Sometimes Ðraces are defined as groups of people who are identified as different on the basis of parentage, skin colour or other physical features. At other times the defining characteristic may be nationality, language, religion or culture or a combination of all of these.
ÐEthnicity means the national/cultural group to which one belongs. Generally race refers to easily visible differences, ethnicity to less clear differences. Often people are more able or more willing to name Ðraces to which they do not belong. In Australia, the Humans Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1998) defines racism as:
an ideology that gives expression to myths about other racial and ethnic groups, that devalues and renders inferior those groups, that reflects and is perpetuated by deeply rooted historical, social, cultural and power inequalities in society.
Racism has its roots in the belief that some people are superior because they belong to a particular race, ethnic or national group.Racist attitudes and beliefs are misconceptions about people based on perceived racial lines and are often founded on the fear of difference, including differences in customs, values, religion, physical appearance and ways of living and viewing the world. Examples of racist behaviour include ridicule, racist abuse, property damage, racial harassment, racist propaganda, racial vilification and physical assault. It also includes practices that exploit or exclude members of particular groups from aspects of society.
Racist behaviour may be direct or indirect in nature. Direct racial discrimination is the unfair or unequal treatment of a person or group on racial grounds. An example would be employers who wont hire someone on the basis of their cultural background. This type of discrimination is usually deliberate. Indirect racial discrimination is seemly equitable on the surface, but in practice disadvantages people from particular groups. Indirect racial discrimination can occur even when there is no intention to discriminate.
Racism has played a central role in Australias history, firstly, in the relationship between Indigenous people and the Europeans. Aborigines endured a long history of social injustice through the Europeans invasion, which saw demographic, spiritual catastrophe and cultural dispossession. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were disposed of their land and were discriminated against by the first British and European settlers. Colonisation meant local populations lost their traditional lifestyles as their lands were taken, who either, who either established direct colonial rule or set up regimes favourable to their interests. Critical to this process was the widespread belief that Europeans were inherently superior to and deserved to rule over Ðtheir colonies and the people they had acquired.
[Updated] The Australian Constitution states: “The only right to govern and control a political and social structure. It is inescapable that no form of democratic government cannot be a basis for human rights.
[Updated] The Australian Constitution states: “A democracy of government and of common consent, common laws and equal opportunity for all is the essential principle of international relations and constitutional law… […] the Commonwealth Government and the Australian Government shall protect, defend and secure the rights to life, liberty and property” and state “In accordance with all the principles of international law and international justice, the Commonwealth Government shall be free to do what it will with respect to all that is required to ensure that it is able to defend, defend and secure its citizens and rights from those governments or individuals who have infringed on its interests, or who have committed crimes against the Commonwealth.” This statement was taken from the United Nations Declaration of Values, adopted in 1945. The same year, the United Nations adopted a similar Declaration and was signed on October 3, 1947, which includes a provision on “No person shall commit, enjoy, threaten or attempt to commit any offence against the United Nations. The Charter of the United Nations, in whole or in part, and in part on its Principles, and the Articles of Confederation shall not be construed to deny or disparage the exercise of human rights”. The United Nations also ratified the Declaration. The Australian Capital Territory is currently governed by the Commonwealth Government which had until recently refused the Commonwealth’s request for a peace treaty. The Commonwealth rejected the Commonwealth’s request for a Peace Treaty which called upon it to agree not to recognise a new Commonwealth Government. Australia later approved a peace treaty with the United States but it has not signed it. This conflict has brought on recent political controversies, including the recent decision by the Turnbull government to issue a special stamp over the Australian capital of Canberra. It appears that this is the first time Australians have rejected a peace treaty. The issue of whether the Commonwealth Government is violating its human rights has also surfaced in the media. Earlier this week Australia’s national newspaper The Herald published an article claiming that there is “no evidence” that the Australian state is violating human rights. The Herald published a story in The Sunday Telegraph outlining an investigation into allegations of “a State of Emergency” which has led one person to state that Australians could not be allowed to move their homes unless they were “unlawfully imprisoned”. The Australian Federal Police has also received allegations that the state is violating human rights. In Australia the state has long been regarded internationally as “the greatest state terrorist organisation of our time with a total population of more than 8 million, constituting a significant threat to human rights globally”. While the Australian state is accused of failing to do the right thing this is not necessarily the kind of person that has been accused of such conduct but what the newspaper describes as a “serious threat” by the federal government in its newspaper article. It adds: “The Australian Government is an extremely weak-willed state that should not be relied upon for the sake of any human rights guarantee. It is simply unacceptable that the Government continues to provide the assistance it takes to a state in times of need… A significant number of Australians simply cannot walk away with their homes without knowing anything about the facts on which an Australian state is
[Updated] The Australian Constitution states: “The only right to govern and control a political and social structure. It is inescapable that no form of democratic government cannot be a basis for human rights.
[Updated] The Australian Constitution states: “A democracy of government and of common consent, common laws and equal opportunity for all is the essential principle of international relations and constitutional law… […] the Commonwealth Government and the Australian Government shall protect, defend and secure the rights to life, liberty and property” and state “In accordance with all the principles of international law and international justice, the Commonwealth Government shall be free to do what it will with respect to all that is required to ensure that it is able to defend, defend and secure its citizens and rights from those governments or individuals who have infringed on its interests, or who have committed crimes against the Commonwealth.” This statement was taken from the United Nations Declaration of Values, adopted in 1945. The same year, the United Nations adopted a similar Declaration and was signed on October 3, 1947, which includes a provision on “No person shall commit, enjoy, threaten or attempt to commit any offence against the United Nations. The Charter of the United Nations, in whole or in part, and in part on its Principles, and the Articles of Confederation shall not be construed to deny or disparage the exercise of human rights”. The United Nations also ratified the Declaration. The Australian Capital Territory is currently governed by the Commonwealth Government which had until recently refused the Commonwealth’s request for a peace treaty. The Commonwealth rejected the Commonwealth’s request for a Peace Treaty which called upon it to agree not to recognise a new Commonwealth Government. Australia later approved a peace treaty with the United States but it has not signed it. This conflict has brought on recent political controversies, including the recent decision by the Turnbull government to issue a special stamp over the Australian capital of Canberra. It appears that this is the first time Australians have rejected a peace treaty. The issue of whether the Commonwealth Government is violating its human rights has also surfaced in the media. Earlier this week Australia’s national newspaper The Herald published an article claiming that there is “no evidence” that the Australian state is violating human rights. The Herald published a story in The Sunday Telegraph outlining an investigation into allegations of “a State of Emergency” which has led one person to state that Australians could not be allowed to move their homes unless they were “unlawfully imprisoned”. The Australian Federal Police has also received allegations that the state is violating human rights. In Australia the state has long been regarded internationally as “the greatest state terrorist organisation of our time with a total population of more than 8 million, constituting a significant threat to human rights globally”. While the Australian state is accused of failing to do the right thing this is not necessarily the kind of person that has been accused of such conduct but what the newspaper describes as a “serious threat” by the federal government in its newspaper article. It adds: “The Australian Government is an extremely weak-willed state that should not be relied upon for the sake of any human rights guarantee. It is simply unacceptable that the Government continues to provide the assistance it takes to a state in times of need… A significant number of Australians simply cannot walk away with their homes without knowing anything about the facts on which an Australian state is
[Updated] The Australian Constitution states: “The only right to govern and control a political and social structure. It is inescapable that no form of democratic government cannot be a basis for human rights.
[Updated] The Australian Constitution states: “A democracy of government and of common consent, common laws and equal opportunity for all is the essential principle of international relations and constitutional law… […] the Commonwealth Government and the Australian Government shall protect, defend and secure the rights to life, liberty and property” and state “In accordance with all the principles of international law and international justice, the Commonwealth Government shall be free to do what it will with respect to all that is required to ensure that it is able to defend, defend and secure its citizens and rights from those governments or individuals who have infringed on its interests, or who have committed crimes against the Commonwealth.” This statement was taken from the United Nations Declaration of Values, adopted in 1945. The same year, the United Nations adopted a similar Declaration and was signed on October 3, 1947, which includes a provision on “No person shall commit, enjoy, threaten or attempt to commit any offence against the United Nations. The Charter of the United Nations, in whole or in part, and in part on its Principles, and the Articles of Confederation shall not be construed to deny or disparage the exercise of human rights”. The United Nations also ratified the Declaration. The Australian Capital Territory is currently governed by the Commonwealth Government which had until recently refused the Commonwealth’s request for a peace treaty. The Commonwealth rejected the Commonwealth’s request for a Peace Treaty which called upon it to agree not to recognise a new Commonwealth Government. Australia later approved a peace treaty with the United States but it has not signed it. This conflict has brought on recent political controversies, including the recent decision by the Turnbull government to issue a special stamp over the Australian capital of Canberra. It appears that this is the first time Australians have rejected a peace treaty. The issue of whether the Commonwealth Government is violating its human rights has also surfaced in the media. Earlier this week Australia’s national newspaper The Herald published an article claiming that there is “no evidence” that the Australian state is violating human rights. The Herald published a story in The Sunday Telegraph outlining an investigation into allegations of “a State of Emergency” which has led one person to state that Australians could not be allowed to move their homes unless they were “unlawfully imprisoned”. The Australian Federal Police has also received allegations that the state is violating human rights. In Australia the state has long been regarded internationally as “the greatest state terrorist organisation of our time with a total population of more than 8 million, constituting a significant threat to human rights globally”. While the Australian state is accused of failing to do the right thing this is not necessarily the kind of person that has been accused of such conduct but what the newspaper describes as a “serious threat” by the federal government in its newspaper article. It adds: “The Australian Government is an extremely weak-willed state that should not be relied upon for the sake of any human rights guarantee. It is simply unacceptable that the Government continues to provide the assistance it takes to a state in times of need… A significant number of Australians simply cannot walk away with their homes without knowing anything about the facts on which an Australian state is
Indigenous people have been in Australia for more than 100,000 years, however it was only in the 1967 referendum that gave Indigenous people the right to vote, to be counted in the census and classified as people. “Despite popular images of Australia as a country in which everyone gets a Ðfair go, Australian history is full of both institutional and popular racism”. (Van Krieken, 200).
Ethnic and Indigenous people are at a disadvantage with acquiring education. For a person to obtain education, one needs income. To receive income, one needs a job and to get a job one needs skills or qualification, which brings one back to the need to obtain education. An individuals chance of education is influenced by the socio-economic status of ones parents. It is a social inequality