We are enjoying a special treat, the Weekend Australian this morning. We especially chuckle over Phillip Adams weekly column, one of the funniest (yet also scathingly sarcastic) being a few weeks ago- see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21591643-12272,00.html for a rude but right on read. Like a modern Mark Twain, he is calling his country to heed the better angels of their natures in the area of tolerance and fair go.

This is interesting in comparison to an abstract that popped up in my PubMed medical literature surveillance robot for "Oceanic Ancestry Group"[MeSH] AND Aborigin*". An article from the British Journal of Social Psychology, [Volume 46, Number 1, March 2007, pp. 191-204(14) Authors: Leach, Colin Wayne; Iyer, Aarti; Pedersen, Anne (who are from PERTH) ] titled

Angry opposition to government redress: When the structurally advantaged perceive themselves as relatively deprived has the following abstract:

We examined (structurally advantaged) non-Aborigines' willingness for political action against government redress to (structurally disadvantaged) Aborigines in Australia. We found non-Aborigines opposed to government redress to be high in symbolic racism and to perceive their ingroup as deprived relative to Aborigines. However, only perceived relative deprivation was associated with feelings of group-based anger. In addition, consistent with relative deprivation and emotion theory, it was group-based anger that fully mediated a willingness for political action against government redress. Thus, the specific group-based emotion of anger explained why symbolic racism and relative deprivation promoted a willingness for political action against government redress to a structurally disadvantaged out-group. Theoretical and political implications are discussed.

In English, what these authors are saying is that inequality in Australia, the U.S. and other developed countries is perpetuated by inaccurate perceptions. The dominant (White) electorate wrongly believe that minorities do not share their values and have unfair advantages over them, even though the society is quite clearly structured in their [Whites'] favor. The authors then say:

"...we expect group-based anger to fully mediate a willingness for political action (symbolic racism -> group relative deprivation-> group-based anger-> action willingness)......

....the notion of inverted relative deprivation may help to explain the
continued appeal of political movements that are fiercely anti-government and antioutgroup.

In the last 15 years, parties such as One Nation in Australia, the British National Party in the UK, the National Front in France, neo-Nazis in Germany and Austria, and ‘white power’ movements in the United States, appear to have increased their numbers and influence by appealing to white people’s relative deprivation-based anger (see Fraser & Islam, 2000; Wrench & Solomos, 1993). All of these parties gained some support among disenfranchised members of the white majority by portraying their ingroup as relatively deprived to immigrants, asylum seekers or other structurally disadvantaged out-groups."

Which brings me to the lapel flower I bought this week. May 26th is National Sorry Day. Of the residents of Perth studied in the article above, over 68% did not believe the Australian government should indicate they are sorry for the past injustices inflicted on Aboriginal people. So it makes sense that the first step must be education and increased awareness of the facts of Australian history. Sorry Day is only 9 years old. Perhaps by wearing Sorry Day flowers and confronting the misinformation about fairness and deprivation, people on this oddly-shaped continent may begin to reconcile. Also something to think about next Martin Luther King day, when we are back home again. As Michael Shermer outlines in this months Skeptic column, ending self-deception is the beginning of wisdom.