I think a key point here is that although some of the mechanisms of racism have old, biological roots, like many things neurological and psychological, it is shaped largely by culture.

It is noteworthy that racist attitudes have reduced over the last century (although are clearly still present), because the last century also represents a period in history with increasingly faster modes of transport and communication, greater spread and diversity in migration patterns, and many wars with highly prejudicial overtones, including the second world war, which have all been part of a cultural awakening against prejudiced attitudes. But more than that, even though some people have misused biology and evolution in particular for prejudical purposes, the knowledge gained overall distinctly points to every human having a common, recent biological and cultural origin. Baring that in mind, and interacting more with more people from more places, we're able to review that old in group affiliation (not remove it) and simply include our entire species in our in group.

I know same thing as article different words, but maybe you see how this relates to your question. Culturally in Australia we have had Muslims (this is where your face veil comment likely stems from) since early in the post-invasion era. But many of those early Muslims were men, who do not where face veils. Secondly, not long after that, Australia had very racist policies (and still does in many respects) which prevented Muslims from coming, and culturally, the Muslims already here laid roots and whilst still practicing the religion, became otherwise ethnoculturally indistinguishable from their friends and neighbours, other Aussies. More recently, Muslims have come to Australia in greater numbers, perhaps largely as a consequence of wars in their countries, some started by the US and helped by Australia. And this in the context of a lot of cultural (media) bulldust about terrorism and conflating the issue and generally fanning the flames of fear and hatred. So the veil feels newer in Australia than it really is, and even if you don't feel hate to Muslims, unconsciously, it wouldn't be surprising if some of those cultural comments have effected your thinking on a emotional level, and you certainly wouldn't be alone in going through that. But by being aware of that factor, you may be able to see what's happening and deal with it as it is then a conscious process.

As for anything nazis, I must admit that everytime I hear the word I think of world war two and Germany. Bloody Hitler. But you know what, you can feel revolted by nazis and not hate Germans at all, as despite the infamy of these particular nazis unfortunately we know it was (and now still is) not just a German thing. To me it's a sign that you're not consciously racist, because being revolted is directed to a form of racist thinking that nazism represents, and being revolted by it is also cultural. Hopefully we all learned at some point how harmful that ideology was to many people, and recognise how lucky we are to live in an era when we can befriend anyone in the world who is willing to befriend us, because that is the key to overcoming the racism, knowing that's both harmful and completely unnecessary & just getting to know other people for who they actually are.

@Emma

I totally agree that ultimately each individual needs to be assessed as an individual.. but this can be a life time project that often the person themselves does understand.
Time is already an issue so we need to make some decisions but on what? May I suggest step back a little and look at big picture features that may help, like:
1/ the result of our lifes experiences and beliefs.
2/ That essentially our behaviour will reflect our beliefs which support our values.
3/ That our minds are wired to categorize what we see and learn so we then have tendencies to form groups that support those internalized categorizations. This internalized model manifests externally in a way that supports the hypothesis that "men have evolved stronger tendencies to form coalitions to attack other groups and to defend their own groups, families and property against coalitions of other men" .. this is a human behaviour that manifests from the playground and throughout our lives into: association to brands names, nationality, race, religion, and corporations.
as noted in this article by Rob that our minds are soft coded and are able to change.. we just need to want to change.. the proverbial horse will only drink from the fountain of knowledge if it wants to.. In order to “want to”, we need to have a problem to solve. We need to understand the problem and then see a solution that people wish to accept and change.. ie form a new group or school of thought..
Change will only occur if there is a desire or even a recognised problem.. the attitude of "just accept people as they are" means there is no need for change.. so if a nazi is accepted as they are then why would they change?
So lets look at what refugees are trying to escape from and what problem are they trying to solve?.. Because there is a strong likely hood that this society may not help them at all.

Cheers on the detailed reply mate, I think I see what you mean and I'll give this big picture thing another go

1. The result of our life experiences and belief could be anything while we're alive, including, but not limited to, variations in our capacity and interest to change that sometimes are, perhaps misleadingly, conceived of as essential personality traits

2. What's also the case and perhaps even more likely is that people alter beliefs when their behavior is inconsistent with what was previously perceived of as the actual belief. i.e. "I did X because I believe Y" is what is percieved, when what happened was "I did X because of prior learning and current circumstance and am trying to understand this in a more tangible fashion, so I am attributing the cause to belief Y, and not acknowledging consciously that this is a biased cognitive short cut due to it being rather complicated and perhaps feeling uncomfortable with the normalcy of reactionary conduct applying to myself, and this also may be attributed to culture that encourages rationality as a valued decision making process and my need to feel like I am in control of myself and therefore my life and circumstances as well as being a functioning and valuable member of my culture"

3. Yes people do seek out situations that reinforce existing belief structures. But not always. Some belief structures are ostensibly built up around the idea that challenging belief structures is both useful and even morally virtuous. Although holding this particular rationale does not guarantee the reduction in bias, it is possible that it enables some limited form of the recognition of bias, and subsequently, seeking out ideas that challenging what is currently believed or perceived to be believed, by the person doing the search.

As for jigsaw puzzles/problems being motivators for change and/or the quest for knowledge, I must say that applies to me and that in my experience it applies to most if not all people. On the other hand it's also the case that any one of us, when presented with a seemingly insurmountable challenge, or one that appears to be too challenging to perceptions of self and the capacity to control one's circumstances, that the belief that there is even a problem at all may be what is challenged instead, and therefore, the quest for knowledge or solutions to that puzzle, ends. Think of the idea of devastating anthropocentric climate change as a possible example....the world is very big and sometimes very scary and a world that is unlikely to continue to support our species due to seemingly insurmountable socioeconomic and cultural big world constructs of our species sounds like a problem that could belong in the too hard basket. Some people might find that so difficult and threatening that it's easier to just pretend its not real in the first place.

As for accepting people as they are meaning there is no need for change, I do think I see what you mean, but, I think accepting people as they are enables change through the reduction of percieved resistance as a threat. For example, if we keep badgering the climate changer deniers with "your wrong your wrong stop creating obstacles to change with your ignorance" chances are they'll clam up and hide, and be even more defensive of the denial-belief and even come to believe that the people saying that are a threat as well. They might even seek out things that reinforce the belief (true or not) and run with it. Hmm, I'll bet there are loads of examples where this has happened already.

So with the nazis for example, they percieved threats too. Post WWI Germany was a hole. They were in so much dire straits, and people were desperate for someone or something to blame, something tangible, to solve the problem. Racism and so forth were scapegoating - the invented but tangible thing. In this case it lead to the rise of Hitler, who, despite using criminal type tactics and much nonsense to get into power, and despite the horrible nasty things he and his cronies did, achieved that change. But the attribution was false - like they thought they succeeded because they "dealt with" (worse words can be used) "the problem" but really any improvements made was because the country under went renewed, purposeful economic and social activity....something for which racism and prejudice (and even autocracy) is not required.

People who follow this dogma now - neonazis for example - likely exist in a similar state of percieved or actual socioeconomic threat, and scapegoat similarly because they are unaware of what the real causes are, or may even feel that these belong in the too hard basket. Socially inherited beliefs that encourage people to ignore socioeconomic threats likewise reinforce the scapegoating.

To accept a neo-nazi as he or she is in this case is to accept that they are just another human being who is using what they think they know and what they think they see, rather inaccurate though it is, to feel a sense of control over their own lives, which may be otherwise genuinely lacking. Simply demonising that belief, or the person, however virtuous it feels to do so, does not change the belief or the person. But accepting that it is based on something deeply misguided but nonetheless real to them, means that the doors can be opened for communicating ways to deal with it that have the desired result: the neo-nazi stops being one because they actually have non-racist means to control their own lives and recognise that these means are more effective than the previous means they had.

As for refugees, it is difficult to comprehend just how difficult life must be in the country of origin to go through such an ordeal with low odds of being treated with respect on arrival. But, we don't know if they know before leaving just how rough things are in the prisons and so on. They may just know how rough things are in their current situation, and surely anything is better than it - dire straits indeed. Like any desperate person I would imagine running headlong away from danger is part of the issue....running away from an immediate threat....these are after all, refugees we're talking about. Thinking about surviving now....deal with the rest later, at least no one is shooting your kids there. Priorities.

@Emma
Thanks, I think this topic is important enough to have a few goes.. My thoughts follow:
1/ agree.. All life experiences imprint our minds and emotional bank to form the platform from which we make our future decisions. Every time we remember something new our brain has a new chemical imprint that is for our life time.
2/ "I did X because I believe Y" is deductive thinking that we can apply to those issues that we can think or self talk and is very much dependant on our beliefs, emotional state and whether or not we can be objective about what we are talking or thinking about.. Over and above what we think about an issue there is what we will actually do at the point of incidence.. eg Many people know that they should give up smoking and can even be talking about it while they light up another one..
So there is a subconscious component that manifests that overrides our thoughts at any time.
Our personality is often formed at an early age.. 0 to 6 are our imprint years where experience and learning are formed before we have developed complex personality.. I like to think of it as a pre-verbal phase where we do not have words to describe what we experience..
there is then a point where we start modelling ourselves around our superheros which then become one of our identities that we then base our behaviour and beliefs.. recent example is that “Joker” whose identity is totally immersed in the character of the same name.. This young man is so immersed in character he has become the joker. In life for most of us we have a number of identities or archetypes that form the basis of who we are and our values.. eg “researcher” and “artist” imply specific values and behaviour. Our deductive thinking is linked to these archetypes in an inductive way.
From 12 onwards there is our group or social identity that starts to form.. teenage years is more about our friends than our parents for example.
3/ The “jigsaw puzzle” of what we experience vs how we think is a place where the causality of our thoughts become reality. Most often what we think takes on a life of its own according to the conditions within which those thoughts and actions are planted. eg I would guess, that what the German people thought was happening and how they reacted was not what they expected once the war took on a life of its own.
In the same way I suspect there is an element of this occurring in the arab spring and other movements that are occurring around the globe at the moment.. eg. For the west to believe (what we think)that by helping one side to violently takeover from Gaddafi would mean anything other than a continuation of violence as a way of resolving the countries issues. Syria is another example.. rather than trying to talk down the violence, it seems like the media is happier to take sides in a violent conflict rather than promote discussion and discourage the violence altogether to all sides.
As for our refugees, there is no easy answer.. Yes there are those that are those escaping persecution such as the christians or druids or atheists in Syria who have absolutely nowhere to go because they are surrounded by states where the kuffur is in a very precarious position. Well I believe there is a very good case for offering them refuge.. However, as was the recent case where a couple of refugees were discovered to be actually people smugglers and how many other people that are probably escaping criminal charges what are we to do?

wait.. and maybe keep waiting .. That would require some proactive thinking and leadership

Nick, Racism can be eliminated to a great extent with a responsible government and media. This article compared with examples the kind of freedom in Australia often resulted in the deprivation of freedom to others. The way Singapore government regulate their media and so-called "free speech" in the west produced a higher form of freedom in the spirit of equality, fairness and inclusiveness: http://outcastjournalist.com/index_files/culture_of_bigotry_hindered_australia_ability_to_intergrate.htm . Remember to look at the photos at the end of the article.

@Chua,

sorry, why trust the government with setting the rules of discussion.. it is a very slippery slope that can create other problems. I am sure that we can sight too many examples of this around the world.. Australia is hardly the worst.
I would argue that internet forums like this one are the future because they allow a venue for intelligent debate and discussions.. People are self-moderating and discussion can be robust and still remain healthy..
you can have your opinion, and that is a right/privilege that will either gain you respect or will just show you up as a crack pot.

Respect is earned through reason and wisdom. Or try write in some other countries and experience the consequences no matter how correct or wise you maybe.

Joseph, Singapore experience two racial riots in the 60s. One before Singapore was forced out from Malaysia and declared Independent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore ; the other in 1969: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_race_riots_of_Singapore ; However, by restricting the public and politicians from smearing against others based on their race and religion, and a series of other public policy that treat everybody fairly, the society quickly move towards mutual acceptance and in harmony.

If you have being to Singapore before, you should notice that you can hardly see a police official on the street. The society is very safe. You are able to walk the street in the middle of the night without the risk of encountering racially motivated attack.

In Australia, racially motivated attacks are common. I read more than a dozen of newspapers on the net every day and I can assured you that.

Mr Chua,

Singapore i am sure has its own issues, and i am not in a position to comment.

regarding australia, yes Australians are at time more confronting and yes there is violence.. It may happen across racial lines but it also happens within races.. Murders are mostly likely to occur from someone you know for example.. that is a real statistic rather than what newspapers report..

If your experience is solely based on reading the net and newspapers then sorry but i think you are getting a distorted view of what happens on the streets of this country.. you are happy to pull out the race card because maybe that is easy to make just like it is for the news papers.. but sorry i am afraid you are wrong..

Much of the violence i have seen is by men in groups who for any number of reasons have or create an issue which they then act upon.. sometimes it is because they are drunk, sometimes over women, sometimes it is to assert their dominance on others.. they will use racial slurs or anything that they believe will insult others to be upset and fight.. this is a complex mix which racism is just one part... some ethnic groups are more likely to get into fights because culturally it is more acceptable..

I believe the use of the racist card is most unhelpful because it does not address the issues which has to do with behaviour and conflict resolution.. differences hardly matter as i have been to many places and festivals where there people were all very happy and peaceful regardless of colour

In short criticise the behaviour which can be changed rather than the race which should be celebrated.

Joseph, Singapore as a human society is no different from Australia. All human being are born naked like a piece of white paper. Their destiny depending on what is written on that sheet of paper through the people they contact including he media and speeches given by the politicians; Racism in Australia is far more serious than anything you can learn from the Australian media. I have an article on the issue under the title: Let’s not deny the evidence that Australia has a problem with racism—General Cosgrove is right.. : http://outcastjournalist.com/index_files/lets_not_deny_australia_has_problem_with_racism.htm . Since then, racially motivated incidents continue to happen across Australia. This is the experience of Dr. Teo: http://video.heraldsun.com.au/2188028021/Dr-Charlie-Teo-speaks-out-on-racism-FULL-VERSION

Mr Chau,

who do you think are the racists? native born australians or immigrants? or both?

once again.. i suspect you are drawing from a very simplistic view that is designed to create fear and suspicion with no solution other than attack.. You fail to achnowledge this great multicultural landscape here and you should get out more.

If one is used to conversing with Comrade Chua on The Conversation (now how can I put this sensitively), one can discern a certain antipathy toward 'western' cultures, values and behaviours, and an unwillingness to accept chimeras of such characteristics in 'other' cultures.

Top of the morning to you Comrade Chua. The group rules, n'est-ce pas?

Joseph, my solution is a Singapore solution. In fact, China media and government are very responsible in this as well. For example, the recent racist attacked of Chinese students in Sydney, The Chinese "Twitter" - Weibo deleted comments against Australia with hate language and rumour: http://technode.com/2012/04/26/weibos-effect-on-australias-image-after-train-attack-on-two-chinese-students/ . That why, despite China being a victims of a century of western brutality before the communist party put China back in one piece, there is hardly any incident of racially motivated attacks in China. Just read the advice of the Lonely Planet travel guide on China to confirm my claim.

By the way, this is another two example of how Australia media fuel racism:

1) http://outcastjournalist.com/index_files/australia_media_fueling_racism.htm

2) http://outcastjournalist.com/index_files/evidence_of_murdoch_newspapers_distorting_News.htm

Mr Chau,

i do have alot of respect for China and Chinese culture. As it turns out that the current Chinese government is an overal postive outcome and i am very thankful for that.

As for your "outcast" position, i suspect that you would be very quickly shut down in Australia, if Australian goverment used the Chinese model.. You seem to be as guilty as the herald sun that you qoute most often for fueling racist views..

Jospeh, China is not that oppressive. Read this article on the blind activist - No evidence to support Cheng Guangcheng’s “beating” claims: http://www.disinfo.com/2012/07/no-evidence-to-support-chen-guangchengs-beating-claims/ and you will know that, despite of all the claims of "beating" and "restriction on activities", those US funded "dissidents" are in fact free to do a lot of thing.

Despite of all the indisputable evidence and examples on my website about racism in Australia, many people still find it hard to acknowledge the reality. This is why I added a message on every page of the website: "Do not get angry with me over the facts I presented, question me if I get my facts wrong."

If you read Chinese, you will know that China do allow free speech to a certain extent. There are no lack of articles that are critical of the government.

The difference between a state school and a catholic school is that a catholic school gets more money and has a pretense at unity through religion.

I would hardly call the education socially liberal.

You're quite right about my comment being judgmental. I did however spend 13 years in a Catholic school. Anecdotal though it may be, it was part of the catholic education system which has a relatively uniform curricula across schools.

And I can assure you it's not socially liberal. It's just not as fundamentalist as some other examples. Perhaps comparing it to say, the Westboro Baptist Church? Calvinists aren't any more fundamentalists then Catholics, like you said, different ways of looking at the same [socially illiberal] concepts.

My comment about the financial aspect, and the pretense of unity, is the tip of an iceberg though that may provide another explanation for the findings you cited.

Catholic education is private in Australia, and it is subsidised by the government. So in a low SES suburb, like the one I was raised in, there will be some kids who aren't from middle class families and many who are. But for the most part, the ethnicity or wealth of the family doesn't matter, because we're all supposed to believe the same stuff. That's unity through religion - not diversity of belief, not social liberalism in it's teachings.

State education is obviously also paid with taxes, and it has a poor reputation so people send their kids to non-state schools when they can afford it. In low SES suburbs, more kids will go to state schools. In low SES suburbs, there usually tends to be more of a mixture of ethnicities and backgrounds, because let's face it, Australia is a racist country and NESBmigrants with degrees still wind up working in factories and driving cabs. The broader culture is racist here - there's constant fear about asylum seekers, 911, and so on, all manifestations of an old theme that go way back when to white australia and stolen generations policies (and the catholics were part of this too). In poor communities, people need someone to blame for their poverty, and the broader culture blames ethnicities. So in the playground in poor schools, they bring the fears of their parents, who fear that as well.

In wealthier suburbs with state schools, I'm sure there is just as much racism but not for a slightly different reason. The broader culture is still an influence and so are the parents. But wealthier suburbs are still predominately ethnocentric in Australia. So they may be more likely to all or mostly be the same ethnicity and/or religion. And therefore not pick on each other about that specific issue, but perhaps will pick on people outside of school.

As for racism inside Catholic schools - it does exist. But there is some protection from the pretense of unity that the religion creates - and so Catholic kids would probably pick on kids outside of school rather than in it.

re: "criticize behavior, rather than the person of their race"

I find the use of the word "racism" a particularly difficult term to reconcile, because it leads nowhere.. the "race" we belong to, we are stuck with and can not change, whereas the drivers that create conflict can be addressed and maybe changed. There is no path to resolution.

whereas path to resolution "criticize behavior, rather than the person"

I suppose before we move forward we need to decide are we after Resolution or an Impasse?

If we choose resolution, then lets totally ditch the "Racism" label.. How about we are trained to look for the root cause(s) of the behavior that causes the conflict within us. Once aware of where our angst originates, this then helps us as a society to move on from this outdated survival mechanism called "racism".