Racial Violence Continues in Australia - New York Times:
leaving aside how this story completely reinforces my problematic stereotype of australians as thuggish throwbacks of aggression and how it makes me think that this is what happens when 19th century prison colonies go horribly awry (inbreeding!) what i like most about this story is the prime minister's disingenuous refusal to say that racism is widespread in australia.
when i read that, the first thing that popped into my mind was the country's quite recent history of repression against aboriginals.
but then my little thought bubble was soothed when i read this:
"Aborigines rioted in the Sydney neighborhood of Redfern in February 2004 after blaming police for the death of a 17-year-old boy. Forty police were wounded."
well, that's all right then, isn't it? racism can't possibly exist on a widespread level in australian society, despite the ease with which thousands of white youth assault innocent brown people, since aborigines rioted.
because the two situations are absolutely the same, aren't they?
(and here's more on immigration. this time, it's 92 GOP House Reps who want to stop all children born in the us from being US citizens. i can't believe how completely fascist it is and how easily 49% of the population thinks it's ok.)