Opponents framed Indigenous Australians as overcompensated welfare recipients

Evidence

The argument that Resources should be used productively and in a costeffective manner was also mobilized by respondents opposed to an apology. Many of the “No” respondents argued that Indigenous Australians had already been given too much (at the expense of others), and were not “owed” any more (even in the form of a symbolic apology). — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1656

Categorization

• XREF: Parallels the reverse-racism and perceived-disadvantage findings in ch8 and the ‘perceived illegitimacy of advantage’ dynamic from ch9. — connects to: Many white Australians believe they are more disadvantaged than Indigenous peoples — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 1648; Anti-welfare rhetoric disparaged Black recipients while ignoring White beneficiaries — Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning: The…, 980; Symbolic racism frames opposition to welfare as moral defect rather than racial inferiority.

Broader Connections

• Many white Australians believe they are more disadvantaged than Indigenous peoples #expands (0.82) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1648
• Anti-welfare rhetoric disparaged Black recipients while ignoring White beneficiaries #complicates (0.78) — Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning, 980
• Symbolic racism frames opposition to welfare as moral defect rather than racial inferiority. #expands (0.75)