race relations
9 Aug 2009
Bolt's Ignorance Gets Another Outing
Andrew Bolt's recent columns prove that you can have almost no understanding of community relations, cynically attack vulnerable minorities, and still have a well-paid job on the Herald Sun
At a time when people are prone to saying stupid things, I sometimes look to the Herald Sun to get some idea of the stupidest things people might say. A highlight is often Andrew Bolt.True to form, in his reaction to the arrest — not conviction — of Somalians accused of planning a terrorist attack, Bolt wrote what we might call a five-point manifesto. Point five was the highlight. He says we should "rethink immigration intakes".
So which immigrants should we reject? Well, Bolt tells us that "we keep making the same mistake, particularly in taking in people from war-torn, tribal and backward countries". As an example, he points to the Muslim Lebanese people who now live here, "too many" of whom "ended up on welfare ... or worse". And apparently a tendency to adopt a life of crime is "not just a Muslim thing". Bolt reckons that the Vietnamese, Tongans and Samoans have elevated crime rates too. Plainly, the arrests are not so much a threat for Bolt as an opportunity.
So if we are to stop taking in immigrants from backward countries — in Asia, in the Middle East, in Africa and the Pacific Islands — which continents have immigrants Bolt considers appropriate?
Bolt doesn't bother saying. In his list of countries which have sent dangerous immigrants to Australia, Bolt doesn't include any from Europe — including those Europeans who devastated Indigenous Australian societies across this continent. Is Bolt saying that he regrets the end of White Australia?
Bolt notes that Howard's immigration minister Kevin Andrews was "monstered" for reducing refugee intake from Africa. Yet, he holds, we should insist on "frank talk". Well, if Bolt thinks he should be free to advocate his immigration policy borrowed from the 1950s, I would hope that he would also support the "frank talk" of those who call his views racist.
Bolt's warning about the crime rates of Lebanese Muslims and so on was likely an incomplete list of those from countries Bolt considers backwards. He warns that we may be "importing problems we don't need". Such rhetoric makes me think of Australia in the 1930s. At the 1938 Evian Conference held in France, in response to the rising number of Jews fleeing Nazi persecution, Australia explained why it would not take in Jewish refugees, saying, "as we have no real racial problems, we are not desirous of importing one".
It is time that we tell people like Bolt that all communities are equally human. We all produce our own criminals. For example, there is a community of people in Australia, let us call them Community X. Community X produces far more rapists and woman-beaters than the rest of Australia. Not only this, they have a marked tendency to get off scot-free when they commit crimes, at least partially due to their influence and domination of the judicial system. Community X has also consistently blocked the necessary funding to stop violence against women.
If the group I am talking about were Muslims, Bolt would presumably advocate we send them back to wherever they come from. But Community X is, in fact, men.
The fallacy here, of course, lies in the view that some arbitrarily chosen group of people is less Australian than the rest of us, and "we" need to be "protected from them". The irony is that Bolt complains about "ethnic ghettos" in the same article in which he advocates restricting immigration from everywhere but Europe (although he doesn't mention the Americas either).
If we were to take Bolt seriously — and I hope few do — we should conclude that he is seeking to create ethnic ghettos of his own. Bolt doesn't consider them ethnic ghettos because they would be white. Perhaps we could attribute this to the view that ethnicity is something "they" have, whereas Anglos are just normal.
As it happens, I live in a predominantly Jewish area and went to an exclusively Jewish school. Would Bolt complain about the Jewish "ethnic ghetto"? Or will he only pick on the most marginalised and poor elements of Australian society?
The chief commissioner of Victorian Police, Simon Overland, wrote an interesting article in The Age three days after Bolt's spray, basically warning against the view that there exists a Muslim "them" who are out to get "us". Plainly, the head of police recognises the need to dispel the theory — propagated by Islamist extremists and anti-Muslim polemicists — of a unified West at war with the Muslim world. Overland recognises that the fight against terrorism must include addressing Muslim grievances. He says that "we need to continue to counter the message being perpetuated by terrorist groups and their supporters at all levels." He suggests that the major problem is "social isolation and disengagement" coming from things like racism and stereotyping.
Bolt immediately dismisses this view. "If young Muslim men want to kill us, it's our fault. We must ask: what evil have we done to provoke such anger?"
Bolt is serious. He apparently cannot imagine any reasons why Muslims would be angry with Australia. But, as I've written in the past, such reasons are certainly not hard to find.
Right now, it is not enough for us to challenge Australia's Andrew Bolts. We must insist that human rights are not negotiable and should fight to claw them back. We must insist that multiculturalism, contrary to Bolt's view, is non-negotiable and, if anything, we should be more welcoming of people from across the world.
We must also insist that there is no such thing as a united West clashing with a monolithic Muslim world. The worst elements of both have often collaborated, and it is always the innocent people who suffer for it. The West has supported Islamist theocrats and terrorists like Zia ul-Haq, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the House of Saud and many more. The very real grievances Muslims have against Western governments can be exploited by Islamist extremists — if they do not feel anyone in the West cares about them, and if they do not think there is another way of changing Western policies.
It is true that there is a small group of Muslim extremists who have committed terrible crimes against people in the West and would like to commit more of them. But there is also a small group of Western extremists who have committed terrible crimes against people in the Muslim world and would like to commit more of them. They're presidents and prime ministers, people like John Howard, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and many more. We must create a space to reject them all, to stand for human rights and against the slaughter of innocents.
Note: All comments on this article will be held in a moderation queue until they can be reviewed by a moderator. If you are posting after business hours your comment may not appear before 9am the following day.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
I too live in a predominantly Jewish area, (although I am not Jewish). I always wonder why people who bang on about veils and hijabs and oppressed women and non-Australian values in the Muslim community never mention the orthodox Jewish women in wigs or head coverings, modest long skirts and stockings with numerous children, restrictions on electricity, driving, being with unrelated men etc etc etc and other quite strict (from the outside) religious requirements.
From what I have learnt from both Muslim and Jewish friends - neither of these groups of women on the whole consider themselves particularly oppressed, and both have similar views about why they choose to ‘conform’ in this way..
www.moorewordsandpics.blogspot.com
A nicely chosen photograph of Bolt to illustrate the article.
I’m not convinced he’s running on the same genome as the rest of us. It’s a bit rich when he takes a swipe at Africans, Muslims, environmentalists or any of his other growing list of pet hates. At least they’re indubitably human.
Kelvin Thompson (my local Federal Labor MP) thinks we need to consider our immigration intake as well. Another reminder that the difference between Bolt and Labor is so fundamentally tight.
There probably is a muslim ‘them’ out to get a western ‘us’ - and with good reason, i might add. Killing Muslims is the most expensive part of our international relations budget - the cornerstone of our foreign policy. We love the mass murder thing in Australia (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). it’s not just the small group of extremists, war crimes in Australia are mainstream. We jump at any chance the US gives us to kill people in the darker nations and it looks like that will continue. What surprises me is how few muslims want to attack us and how few sympathisers want to assist them to do it.
It is very easy, Mr Brull, to get on one’s high horse and portray a patriot like Andrew Bolt as a bit of a weak minded jerk who plays the straw man for those from the right who can’t afford to be seen as racist thugs. Very easy indeed.
Anyone might imagine, from what you and others have to say, that Bolt is a cad and a bounder of the highest order. That for him, research consists of dumbing down Gerard Henderson articles for the Oz readers.
Even I could simply give in to the rush of abusive phrases and intellectual derision that flow through my fingertips as I consider how I feel about this brilliant Australian hero. I might opine for instance that reading one of his columns is like being force fed a whole raw bratwurst. It is all easy, Michael, but I have to ask ‘Is it fair?’.
Yes, yes it is.
Damian Lataan
It’s not just his ignorance that gets another outing; he’s managed to display his hypocrisy as well lately.
In his blog yesterday, 11 August 2009, Bolt wrote about the Reverend Peter Adam, who had been quoted as saying that, “All non-Aboriginal Australians should be prepared to leave the country if the indigenous people want that”, adding that, “If they stayed, they would have to provide whatever recompense indigenous peoples thought appropriate”. Bolt said that Adam was being “Not just racist, but divisive, naive and utterly impractical”.
Adam, of course, far from being ‘impractical’, was merely hypothesising to emphasise a point about how Europeans had abused Aboriginal peoples ever since arrival. Bolt in characteristic fashion has attempted to use Adam’s words in order to deflect his own racism by attempting to highlight what he believes, or what he’d like others to believe, is someone else’s racism.
Such transparent hypocrisy from Bolt is now commonplace but in this particular example it is far more pronounced.
In this case Bolt is accusing Adam or being racist because Adam has suggested that non-Aboriginal people leave the leave the country. However, only a few days earlier, shortly after the so-called ‘terrorists’ were arrested in Australia, Bolt wrote: “there are fundamentally two options before us. One is to ‘drain the pool’ - or slash Muslim immigration.”
‘Drain the pool’ and ‘slash Muslim immigration’ really is racist. It is also divisive, naïve and utterly impractical. Slashing Muslim immigration is akin to slashing Catholic immigration through fear of some IRA fighters coming to Australia or slashing Chinese immigration through fear of communists sneaking in.
Bolt thinks that asking non-Aboriginal people to leave is racist but ‘draining the pool’ of Muslims isn’t.
Make no mistake about who the racist really is here.
http://murdochspropagandists.blogspot.com/
Yes, it’s a pity Australia didn’t restrict Dutch immigration in the 1950’s - we would have been spared Andrew Bolt’s lunatic ravings
Shock! horror! Andrew Bolt is of Dutch Background. Clearly he has rejected his culture. Whilst a pathetic minory of Dutch people would share his racist views most of us don’t. Steinbeck summed up his attitude to migrants quite nicely when he described migrants as being dirty, amoral and dangerous. Steinbeck was referring to the Okies - White Americans who were dispossessed and attempted to make a new life in California. In Australia every wave of migration resulted in people saying similar things about the latest wave of migrants. The Greeks and Italians were the scapegoats of the sixties and seventies, The Vietnamese and other Asians for much of the eighties and nineties. In the 21st century it is the Africans and Muslims. Bolt is right nothing much changes - we remain intractably prejudiced against the most recent group of immigrants conveniently forgetting the tremendous contributions other groups of migrants have made to this country.
Perhaps all boat people and their descendents should be repatriated this of course would mean that I would end up on the same boat as Mr Bolt but it would mean that the country would be left with a handful of Asian and African immkigrants (most who came here by plane) and the real Australians.
Now now, steady on. In Andrew’s defence… Um…
I will write in defence of the argument that we should have our eyes wide open when offering refugee places to peoples escaping war zones, and that we should assess heightened risk factors in cultural difference and language in the assessment at what rate we can successfully absorb those peoples.
We should have better learned skills from past expereince in respect of settlement placement and we should have more critical public review and discussion around the ghetto vs isolate and more quickly assimilate issues.
To sing a song of righteousness in offering places equally to all cultures without plugging into the realities and calling for meausures that address those realities is as equally reckless in a public policy sense as Bolt’s call. If we have Bolt vs Brull and there is any straw poll done Brull denialism will have contributed to the result falling into Bolt’s lap.
I don’t wish to run a strawman here for the anti-immigration lobby and believe too that we nourish our identity by providing refugee places to the most needy and the most traumatised.
We must however recognise that a refugee has often been crushed to have become deserving of the place in the first place, often comes from conflict zones and has participated in the conflict and that violence will be in part normalised in the family narrative, and that when that is layered with having lesser opportunity to have a trade, language difficulty, stark cultural and religious value differences, kids who gain language and new skills more quickly than parents trying to retain authority, negotiating social security systems & anti immigrant resentments that further lower esteem and authority, then you have formidible and compounding series of issues that will create negative social realities.
So to some extent the rate of absorbtion is an issue, the level at which we can provide support resources is an issue - and especially the goverment’s responsibility to find meaningfull work for those with the greatest hurdles to jump, and lastly to foster communities that both nurture and provide opportunity for the individual integrity and self starting that builds family esteem and parental authority.
These factors shouldn’t just be reviewed among the stated refugee population. People here on NM get hooked up on Israel and we can count the skilled immigrant programme and cuddle ups to the jewish lobby from Hawke to Howard and onto to Rudd/Turnbull as a ticket for Israeli and South African jews to rapidly increase their intake no.s in that period. Former members of the IDF for instance carry baggage & risk too and this often lost as inconsequential due to the holocaust narrative and due to having syeered around those few usefull assessment programmes when arriving with the skilled cohort into a receptive and expansive jewish community.
". For example, there is a community of people in Australia, let us call them Community X. Community X produces far more rapists and woman-beaters than the rest of Australia. Not only this, they have a marked tendency to get off scot-free when they commit crimes, at least partially due to their influence and domination of the judicial system. Community X has also consistently blocked the necessary funding to stop violence against women."
Michael,
When are you going to expose these people. Do they also drink-drive and lie in Court?
If we could boot out the bad eggs then Bolt would be left with no argument or audience. Filtering of course would help. Then a mandatory probation period of ten years. Any crime would not see gaol time but a ticket home.
Life would be really boring if we all looked and behaved the same way. Diversity is good.
Bolt is a racist and rabid Liberal. He would be happy if we were back in the "White Australia" policy days…… He doesn’t understand the meaning of diversity and cultural integration. He isn’t even a good journalist.
He wouldn’t go anywhere unless it was 5 star, let alone going to check out third world countries who desperately need help and support.
I do believe you have misunderstood the drift of Bolt’s argument against certain types of migrants who may have trouble fitting in and accepting our social values.
His reasoning against these people has nothing whatsoever to do with racism as such, but is far more concerned with the disrespect of some fanatical Muslims (regardless of their outward appearance or ‘race’) with the social and cultural values held sacred by our Western society, including the freedom of woman to dress provocatively etc., etc.
Michael, you say you live in a predominantly Jewish area and attended an exclusively Jewish school. Why?
I am no fan of Andrew Bolt, but I agree with him that we have to rethink immigration intakes - albeit for different reasons.
For Australians’ own environmental good, we have to put a stop to net immigration. We should only take in as many new comers as residents leave, ie immigration minus emigration equals zero.
Of course, we should be able to pick and choose and not admit every Tom, Dick and Harry, but the choosing should not be on racial grounds, but could be on cultural grounds. Race is just not an issue.
Marga, you want to avoid racism but isn’t your bigotry against certain cultures just as bad?
Denise, if a person has "trouble fitting in and accepting our social values" it is because something is stopping them from being able to settle and thrive. It’s actually not about their inability to fit in and accept values (whatever they may be), it’s about Australia making immigrants feel welcome and celebrating diversity.
Anglo populations in Australia have their problems too - there are plenty of Anglos who are devoid of values and "have trouble fitting in" because of drunken or anti-social behaviour. What is the difference? Society (that’s you and I) should be helping these people with whatever it is that’s preventing them from thriving.
Let’s stop blaming and start understanding.
I hope New Matilda introduces a ratings system for comments, so we can give the thumbs up to appreciated contributions.
If this happens, Dr Dog can count on my vote, almost every time.
Thanks Syd. I vote with appreciation for us all continue the great priviledge of working through these issues in this forum. If there is any value I cherish it is free speech.
And I see that we are back to Aussie values again. The culture wars just keep getting fought don’t they. I challenge anyone to specifically identify these values, and then to justify reduction of refugee intake on the basis of those values. Indeed if they are decent values I might imagine they would include a hefty dose of compassion for refugees, and may entail an increase in numbers and an improvement in how we treat them.
denise, this is actually a debate about cultures already. I think it has been long established that people are the same under the skin, and that race is redundant in describing human behaviour. I am sure that each culture has positive and negative values, our own included.
When Bolt calls for less immigration he is basically making a vote of no confidence in our postive values to rub off on newer Australians. I have the opposing view, that our positive values are so good, and so rewarding to refugees, that the vast majority are glad to be away from the conflict and fear of their former lives.
Dr Dog,
Like Syd I greatly appreciate your comments, (and I also liked your entry in the cartoon contest.
I’m not a stalker or anything, but I do think I’m falling in love with you. Woof.
Dr Jane.
Your feelings are normal and healthy Dr Jane.
My dog feels the much same way. He doesn’t have a doctorate, but has met famous people before
Wwoolf volunteers to work on security in the forthcoming elect Dr Dog campaign.
To Camdorm and Michael Brull
It is not possible to live in a predominantly Jewish area in Australia - statistically there is no suburb or even postcode where the population is more than 50% Jewish. With only 100,000 to 120,000 Jews in Australia, with more than 90% more or less evenly split between Melbourne & Sydney it is easy to see why no area could be predominantly (that is more than 50%) Jewish.
In 2006, Catholics were the largest religious group in Australia at 25.8%, of the total population, while Anglicans were the second largest at 18.7%. The next largest religious groups were: Uniting Church at 5.7%,and Presbyterian and Reformed at 3.0%.[111] In 2006 Buddhists were 2.1% of Australia’s population and Muslims 1.7%. While small, these groups have progressively increased since the early 1990s, and in 2006 were greater than two small but older Christian faiths, Baptists, who were 1.6 % of the population; and Lutherans 1.3%. In 2006, Hindus at 0.7% of the population exceeded Jews at 0.4%. HREOC-Face the Facts (2008)
David Zyngier
Israel YES - Palestine YES
National Liberation means National Co-existence
David,
You don’t need to have over 50% of a population sharing one feature (i.e. Judaism) to be predominant, as the remainder may be shared between various groups in society in smaller proportions than the ‘predominant’ group.
45% green eyes compared to an equally mixed group of 55% that includes blue, brown, and/or mixed leaves the green eyes predominant, no? Unless of course you assume all other eye colours are united against the green eyed.
In other news,
I personally see no problems with having smaller groups inside a larger society.
I am not an historian, but my impression is that the most successful empires and societies in history have allowed for social difference while seeking a uniting social story. Australia, and other Western societies, seem quite capable of doing this if we do not cling to a rigid framework.
Mr Bolt is clearly an inflammatory fool. Is he suggesting that Australia’s (already internationally binding) refugee obligations extend only to Europeans with a certificate in IT?
What has changed since Australia ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention? More to the point, what has changed since Australia historically incorporated incoming groups of many other ethnic backgrounds?
It has become an unpopular opinion, but I would answer ‘nothing’.
To ajb3:
No, it’s not. Race = nature, culture = nurture. One cannot change nature, certainly not very easily. You can change cultural values at an instant. It is all about (Darwinian) adaptation.
(Darwinian) adaptation is not only for nature but for nurture too.
And host societies do not have to change their values to accommodate newcomers. Do you seriously suggest we give up our cherished individualism and freedoms and adopt Sharia law in Australia to make some newcomers welcome, or perhaps introduce a caste system?
To Marga:
You have completely missed my point. I’ve suggested a celebration of diversity and you’ve jumped to the assumption that I’m advocating Sharia law in Australia. That reminds me of typical Herald Sun-reader/provincial racist attitudes.
What I am talking about is an acceptance of a number of different value systems existing simultaneously within a community. The only reason this cannot occur is because of bigoted attitudes and intolerance of difference.
Further, what I am saying is if we show some understanding and realise that certain types of behaviour are always provoked by something that is happening to a person (it is never that a person is inherently bad or is behaving anti-socially for the sake of it), then we can look at ways of making things better for those people and we will all benefit.
And as someone pointed out earlier, all cultures/value systems have their positive and negative points. Including your supreme Anglos.
Oh and I love when Anglo populations imply that Australians are so respectful of women and free. Oh, what a joke. We are not free, least of all women and Indigenous populations, we are all (women and men of all colours) controlled by a male-dominated corporatocracy. We are told lies, lies, lies. Let’s not forget this country was built on genocide, rape and lies (lies that are perpetuated to this day).
To ajb3:
Or you missed my point.
1. Maybe you should have defined "diversity" by way of example since it can be interpreted in many ways (but please don’t use the ‘cuisine’ example).
2. Cultural values are living values and therefore subject to change. We change our values throughout our lives, or we would not move forward. (Or course, there are plenty of examples in history, where the move has been regressive).
3. Cultural values must not be imposed, especially not by invading forces. Thus, newcomers have to adapt, simultaneously incorporating the positive aspects of their culture into the mainstream culture, and let go of the negative aspects. Unfortunately, in practice things work quite often differently.
4. Irrespective of race, culture, etc, some individuals adapt easily and others never. Quite often the circumstances why someone migrates to another place determines the level of adaptation.
Most of your post is too emotionally laden for me, to the point of prejudice. So no further comment.
To Marga,
"3. Cultural values must not be imposed, especially not by invading forces. "
The lack of self-awareness, or even the most basic knowledge of this nation’s recent history, that the above statement reveals reaffirms everything I’ve said. To use the term "invading forces" in relation to contemporary immigration or refugee influx is hyperbolic and ridiculous scaremongering.
Here’s the definition of ‘diversity’ for you: difference; unlikeness; variety; multiformity. My definition of diversity is simply living among people who are different from one another in many different ways. Darwin saw diversity as a key factor in the ongoing evolutionary process and a benefit to all life.
"Thus, newcomers have to adapt, simultaneously incorporating the positive aspects of their culture into the mainstream culture, and let go of the negative aspects."
You say "newcomers" have to adapt (which is true) but you don’t acknowledge that Australia also has to adapt, by being more open to other cultures outside the mainstream/predominant one and not asking people to change but learning from them instead. How we receive new cultures plays a huge part in how well they adapt in new surroundings. Historically when a people feels isolated and alienated and is judged as a whole instead of on an individual basis, some sections have rejected the values and lifestyles that have rejected them. This has occurred in all cultures.
Further, who is the judge of which aspects are positive and which are negative, and who decides when an individual has adapted or not? There’s no consensus on either point. Perhaps you’d prefer an entirely homogenous society.
It’s been emotional…
Dear ajb3,
Re "What I am talking about is an acceptance of a number of different value systems existing simultaneously within a community."
I certainly don’t accept value systems which conflict with my own and think it is high time someone stated emphatically that immigrants should respect those of their hosts. This has always been an expectation and happily accepted by millions of "new Australians"
Basically it is up to the individual to grow with times and circumstances and to make "their space" comfortable without infringing on a neighbours’ comfort.
I can no more comment on other’s cultures than I can change my parents.
Marga, here is your piece of string :
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/15/arts/15abroad.html?hp
To EarnestLee,
It’s patronising to refer to oneself/one’s country as "host" particularly when it comes from non-Indigenous populations, who are essentially being hosted by the original inhabitants of this land. I’m not assuming you’re non-Indigenous, I’m just speaking generally.
An immigrant choosing to abide by their existing culture/value system is not in and of itself disrespectful to another cultre/value system.
Who determines how one "grows with times and circumstances"? Further, living alongside another’s culture/value system has never infringed on my comfort - I feel quite comfortable and strong in my own value system and I don’t expect anyone else to conform to it.
There’s no uniform set of values that everyone in a nation happily accepts but it does not make us alien from one another.
To rd001:
Thanks for that. Very tragic story. It only demonstrates that the real culprit in all this is religion and their respective obsessions with their own superiority, which only leads to segregation, inegalitarianism and social conflict.
No surprise that France favours the banning of all religious garments and ornaments in public.
Dr Dog, I have nothing against any cultural/religious/racial group existing as an enclave within the greater Australian society, because that is in fact the very structure of any tolereant Western society.
The people I’m referring to as ‘not fitting in’ are those people/groups who would rather see one minority social group (and their ideology) dominate the rest of the ‘cultural groups’ within our greater society and are prepared to go to violent and unscrupulous means to achieve that end.
The "Hosts" are obviously the natives.
To EarnestLee,
Okay, so what you’re saying is all immigrants (Anglo and others) need to respect the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures? There has been no evidence of that occurring in this nation’s history.
The problem, especially in Australia, is that once someone starts a debate about potential restrictions on immigration, they are automatically branded as racist and therefore have their concerns dismissed.
I’m not condoning Bolt’s columns, but I do think the "community X" argument outlined above is wafer-thin in terms of intellectual value. How about debating using facts and figures rather than badly set-up straw-men?
Facts and figures don’t burn like straw Fred3000. Also if anti-immigration advocates stopped dressing racist arguements as cultural ones they might get a better hearing.
Thanks for your thrilling correspondance Dr Jane, it left me panting slightly with my tongue out. I beleive it is only stalking if unwelcome. I look forward to our continuing interaction. Thanks too Syd for your endorsement and your even-minded approach to these pages.
denise I agree that no-one should have the right to impose their cultural beleifs on another, but this must apply equally to new, older or original inhabitants.
Also it is worth noting that the overall gain by having real and respected diversity must weigh against the negative values attached to each subculture. I think diversity is well worth it, but we can’t have our cake and eat it too.
Dear Marga,
You say; << Very tragic story. It only demonstrates that the real culprit in all this is religion and their respective obsessions with their own superiority, which only leads to segregation, inegalitarianism and social conflict. >>>
Actually, I think what it really demonstrates is that fear (or blind hatred) of that which is different leads people to do horrible things and to feel self-righteous about it afterwards. (It also demonstrates that Dresden should tighten security in their court-house).
The religious beliefs of both victims did not cause this violence. One bigot’s misguided political beliefs did. Your failure to understand this difference is symptomatic of your own apparently misguided beliefs.
Immigrants must respect the legal system of their new country. There is no obligation for people coming to Australia to abandon their own values, beliefs or culture, PROVIDED that in observing them they respect Australia’s laws. And this is exactly how it should be. Australia would be a much poorer nation, culturally, otherwise.
Idiots and bigots from any nation, culture, religion or part of the political spectrum are welcome, just so long as they don’t (as Denise says) go to violent or unscrupulous ends to try and impose their culture on others, (or incite others to do so- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots ;
Alan << Jones "openly advocated and encouraged violent reprisals and vigilante behaviour against young men of Middle Eastern appearance". Jones was found by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to have breached the commercial radio code by broadcasting material that was likely to encourage violence, in the lead up to the riot. >>>).
This should always apply to those of us who were born here just as much as to any "new" Australians.
I live in WA. The only racially/culturally motivated acts of organised violence we have seen here in living memory were all committed by a White Supremicist/anti-immigration group, the Australian Nationalist Movement. Had these firebombings occured today they would certainly have met the criteria to be defined as terrorism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_van_Tongeren
http://www.fightdemback.org/2004/11/01/anm-white-devils/
Dear Dr Dog. Your second paragraph has left me panting slightly as well!
xxx
Dr Jane.
Hear, hear outrigger. Or is it Dr Jane?
And to Fred3000,
"The problem, especially in Australia, is that once someone starts a debate about potential restrictions on immigration, they are automatically branded as racist and therefore have their concerns dismissed."
Wanting to restrict immigration is not racist in and of itself, but if one scrutinises the reasons for wanting to do so, racism is usually the key. Especially if, as in Kevin Andrews’ case, there is a call for immigration to be restricted for one particular ethnic or cultural group. That is the most blatant form of institutional racism and harks back to the White Australia days.
To outrigger/Dr. Jane
I obviously beg to differ.
Do you always call people who disagree with your world view as "apparently misguided"? If so, you better come off your high horse.
Maybe you should contemplate the words of Joschke Fischer (former German Foreign Minister and Greens Party member) who several years ago came to the realization that "Multikulti does not work".
Only too many European countries experience that.
As to tightening security in the court house: it’s all very well to say that with hindsight.
update: yes, Bolt is unhappy about Jews not assimilating. In a blog titled "City of ghettos" from October 2008 http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/co… , he quotes an smh article about Jews, Muslims and Vietnamese being concentrated in certain areas. He says "Much more of that, and Australia risks becoming not “home” but a host community."
What is he saying? That some Australians are home, but Jews (and Vietnamese and Muslims) are somehow foreign and not at home here?
It’s striking that Bolt apparently hasn’t offended the Jewish community, which usually is vigilant on anti-Semitism. But then, looking through his blog, we find that his "friend" is Michael Danby. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/commen…
Danby, for his part, commended Bolt in an article as a "leading tabloid columnist". http://www.danbymp.com/index.php?article=11
I guess the only thing that matters is whether someone’s pro-Israel.
Hello Marga,
I characterised your views as misguided, because it would be less polite (although perhaps more accurate) to describe them as ethnocentric, narrow minded, prejudiced or bigotted. I was granting you the benefit of doubt. Thanks for removing any such doubts.
How on earth can you read the article we linked with and conclude that the victim’s religon was "the real culprit" in this racist attack?
(Also, I’d suggest that it does not require hindsight to realise that preventing defendants from carrying weapons into courtrooms might be sensible).
Your earlier comments allege that people in Australia are keen to introduce Sharia law or "some sort of caste systemn" in order to make immigrants feel at home. This is absolute nonsense; alarmist, straw man nonsense to boot. I’ll get off my high horse when you climb out of your trojan horse. Get over yourself.
You appear to be laboring under the illusion that Australia has "A Culture"; some monolith of values that all Australians conform to; a single unified culture that is under threat from the insidious "invader" cultures of immigrants and refugees. I’ll say once more; Immigrants must respect the legal system of their new country. There is no obligation for people coming to Australia to abandon their own values, beliefs or culture, PROVIDED that in observing them they respect Australia’s laws. And this is exactly how it should be. Australia would be a much poorer nation, culturally, otherwise.
Since you brought Darwinian principles into the discussion you should understand that the more diverse the strategies available, the greater the strength of the species. Species that limit their range of options are painting themselves into an evolutionary corner.
You are correct in stating that race is inheritable, while culture is "extragenetic"- (transmitted by "memes" not "genes"). Racial characteristics are largely superficial, and subject to sexual selection. At core humans are all pretty similar. It’s what we teach people about these superficial differences that creates the dramas.
A knee-jerk reaction to a stranger, based on the fact that they wear a headscarf, is just as baseless and just as reprehensible as a knee-jerk reaction to a stranger based on the colour of their skin or the shape of their eyes. Whether bigotry is based on race or culture is irrelevant- it is still bigotry.
Personally, I don’t believe I have a horse, (high or otherwise), to dismount from. (Mind you, I might like to go for a bit of a ride on Dr Dog sometime…)
Dr Jane.
" And this is exactly how it should be. Australia would be a much poorer nation, culturally, otherwise."
I don’t understand the prejudice against the core host culture. Mongrel European, backwoods maybe, provided pleasure and inspiration.
But the arguement against immigration is economic not cultural. This land cannot support or sustain this population. Australia enjoyed the highest standard of living in the 1890s and since third highest in the late 1940s has been descending rapidly. There has to be a return to self sustainability.
To outrigger
Dr Jane -
I hope you are not working in the area of (psychological) counselling because you for sure would have got it quite wrong.
Headscarf symbolizes Islam, Islam is a religion which only too many see as undermining the values that they uphold. One of the big grudges held against people from countries with no or poor social security systems is that they are ripping off the host country’ s social security system - an economic argument.
Thus a headscarf may provoke someone into action. But for the headscarf the young victim would most likely have fitted perfectly into the Dresden community, and the incident would have been settled in the playground, as I said before. It is somewhat ironic that the perpetrator came from Russia himself and may have had his own experiences with Islamists. Who knows.
My reference to Sharia law was purely satirical. Don’t you have any sense of humour? I loved the Chaser and regret their departure. But the best jokes were those satirizing religion and politics. One either understands it or one does not.
Australia has two cultures: a very old one inherited from the First Australians which tragically is in pieces and we have to rescue what can be rescued.
Its modern culture is very young. Australia is still finding its identidy. One can make cultural amends without importing the people. That was yesterday’s strategy when it took 6 weeks to get to the other side of the globe and communication was by way of snail mail only.
As Ernest Lee quite rightly points out (and I made that point in my first post on 13 August): Australia simply does not have the carrying capacity to add more and more people to its population. So those few that we can take in to make up for those that leave, should make a net contribution to the country rather than sending us in the red.
I don’t think too many Australians take too kindly to comments (a few years ago on TV) from newcomers: "Australia is a good country, has free health, free education, free social service". Exactly, what the North Europeans complain about too.
How many immigrants do you know who came to this country for any other reason than selfishness? How many follow the JFK quote?
The selfishness of trying to stay alive after Pol Pot. The selfishness of trying to make a better life after WW2. The selfishness of escaping tubercular London. What a hide they had, our forefathers.
Selfish, Marga, is living in a country stolen from its people and then denying others a chance at the happiness we have experienced at being part of this great country. Selfishness would be the vanity that you are somehow special in your values, that others with different cultures cannot rise to the opportunity to live in harmony in this country.
That’s what Bolt doesn’t get, or any of his kind. You and he are not specially gifted in the values department, just lucky to have lived the life you have lived. Why are you now so keen to deny others the same opportunity?
Also leave my girlfriend alone! Hi Jane.
Marga,
Are you having an identity crisis? I think you’re reading the wrong online publication.
"Australia simply does not have the carrying capacity to add more and more people to its population."
If this is true, which I strongly disbelieve, all Australians better stop having children then. Especially Herald Sun-readers.
Dear Marga,
I am a health professional, not a "counsellor", (a job description that in Australia doesn’t necessarily mean much; (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25931580-23289,00.htm…)
My job description is largely irrelevant to this discussion. What do you do to earn a living?
To the issue at hand- You perfectly illustrate my point when you state;
<< Headscarf symbolizes Islam, Islam is a religion which only too many see as undermining the values that they uphold. One of the big grudges held against people from countries with no or poor social security systems is that they are ripping off the host country’ s social security system - an economic argument.
Thus a headscarf may provoke someone into action. >>>
As your sharia law comment was apparently sarcastic, perhaps this is just a wonderful example of Poe’s Law? (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe’s_Law)
Assuming you are serious, you appear to be saying that it is natural and acceptable to make assumptions characterising another person’s ethnicity, cultural background, beliefs etc based entirely on their clothing or physical appearance. Some of my patients are undergoing chemotherapy. The women often adopt headscarves or bandanas, so obviously they are all radical Islamists (or maybe pirates?), and any abuse or threats hurled at them by ignorant bigots is their own fault.
They provoked it by looking different.
You are also suggesting that any followers of Islam are fundamentalists who wish to overthrow our culture. If I were to make the assumption (based on the words and actions of a handful of individuals) that all Christians in the world wanted to murder homosexuals (http://www.skeptictank.org/gayhate.htm) or abortion providers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence) then I would be guilty of precisely the same narrow minded, ill informed prejudice as you.
The assumptions and prejudicial attitudes you are exhibiting towards recent migrants are familiar. In the 40’s, 50’s and early 60’s it was recent migrants from Greece, Italy, Macedonia and Lebanon who were allegedly threatening to overwhelm "our" culture, overpopulate "our" country, leach off "our" welfare system and (paradoxically) steal "our" jobs. In the late 60’s and during the 70’s it was migrants from Asia, and particuarly Indochina who were subjected to such prejudice. Then (in the 80’s and early 90’s) it was the turn of the immigrants from Eastern Europe, especially the former Yugoslavia. People who are afraid of difference react in pretty much predictable fashion to anything "foriegn" to their world view- the more identifiable the difference the more arbitrary the prejudice.
With Earnest Lee (BTW- nice handle Earnest) you argue that the grounds for your case is economic, not cultural. Yet this argument is fallacious and seems to serve only as a mask for deep seated ethnocentricism. The fact is that the majority of immigrants work and pay taxes. Of course they should be entitled to social security benefits and public health. The group of migrants who place the largest cost on our welfare system are actually New Zealanders. (My colleague Dr Kiwi claims his compatriots only come to Australia to teach us how to rip off the dole and smoke cannabis). But even Dr’s can be wrong- while New Zealanders in Australia claim about $1 billion per annum in social security and other benefits, they collectively contribute about $2.5 billion per annum in taxes;
http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-International-Law/03-Treaty-making-…
If you review the international literature concerning the analysis of economic impacts of immigration, you will find that vitually every published study contradicts your simplistic view.
As a mongrel (well hello, Dr Dog!) backwoodsy type of Northern European extraction, I have no prejudice against Australian culture. However I do recognise that cultures change and evolve over time. Marga, Australia does not have "two cultures". It has many subcultures. Go to a nightclub and you will see an aspect of Australian Culture our founders would not recognise. Now go to a surf-life-saving club, a supermarket, a basketball game, a cinema- (hell just turn on the TV) and the same will apply. I love Australia and I love living here, but I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a country whose culture was frozen in the 1830’s (when my ancestors immigrated here) or in the 1960’s (when I grew up).
Earnest, Australia did enjoy the highest standard of living in the 1890’s. Back then our economy was based on primary industry- especially agriculture which we now recognise was unsustainable. About a third of our once arable land is now so saline it is unusable. In the 1890’s Australian agriculture relied in many regions on Aboriginal labour. Until less than 50 years ago Aboriginal workers had no rights, were not citizens, and were typically paid with tobacco, tea sugar and flour.
In the late 40’s and 50’s Australia relied heavily on primary and secondary industries, but since then the global economy has changed. I would suggest it is the foriegners who stay in their own rapidly industrialising nations and outcompete our manufacturing industries, not the ones who come to live here, who are taking us down a peg or two on the international rankings of standard of living. We used to manufacture all sorts of things in Australia. Now we just export bauxite, iron ore and other minerals, then buy them back as cars, refridgerators, etc etc. We are still one of the most affluent and privelaged nations on earth. Your suggestions that these changes in the Australian economy are due to immigration do not bear serious scrutiny, and appear to be simply a smoke screen for your own (perhaps internalised and unacknowledged) prejudices.
Think about what that word means. It doesn’t mean that you are necessarily a racist or a nazi. It just means that you are "pre-judging" another person or group of people based purely on your own preconceptions.
Dr Jane.
Dr.Jane/Dr.Dog/ajb3:
All of you make emotional insinuations, which could be seen as offensive if not worse.
None of you know me in the least.
All of you have given away where you stand.
None of you can see the big picture.
It is not possible to discuss rationally an ideology-driven topic where no common denominator can be found. It’s futile.
I therefore logg off from the topic. BYE
SusannaP
I think that many people would like to challenge Bolt on his own page but are too frightened . I challenged him once and the tirade of abuse I received frightened me. Seriously! He managed to turn my words around so that his supporters accused ME of racism. Bolt is a scary man - he uses insults and intimidation to limit any challenge.
Well Dr Jane, Syd and ajb3, that’s a wrap. See you on the next story where we can once again drive the Philestines from the temple.
Hi Susanna,
Bolt responds with insults and intimidation.
And when Marga is confronted by specific evidence that contradicts her unsupported sweeping generalisations, she accuses those presenting the evidence of short-sighted, emotionally motivated, irrational, ideologically driven arguments. She hasn’t actually addressed any of the points we have made. She has simply told us that she is right, we are wrong and that the conversation is over.
Unfortunately this is the all-too typical response of any individual whose beliefs really are absolutist and based on ideology, whenever they are confronted with evidence that contradicts their opinions and that highlights their preconceptions and internalised prejudices.
Coincidentally, I see that Jason Wilson has just published a beautiful example of Andrew Bolt engaging in this kind of ‘reasoned debate’.
http://newmatilda.com/2009/08/18/why-are-we-paying-andrew-bolt
I struggle to see how anything I have written in this thread is "offensive or worse." But since I have already apparently offended poor Marga, I might as well say that I assume it feels good to be so deluded as to be always assured of one’s own self righteousness. While she says that I know nothing about her, her own words have provided me with much sounder evidence to make an assesment than that employed by anyone who judges an individual simply because they follow a different faith, have different cultural practices, or wear a certain type of clothing. Such absolutist belief is impervious to reason and proof against any evidence that contradicts the person’s preconceptions. And so it seems Marga and I can agree on one point- continuing this converstaion is futile. However I believe refuting such nonsense is always worthwhile. Much props to Dr Dog, ajb3, rd001, lataan, Mr Crapulent, and other contributors.
About 1400 years ago a fellow named Seng-ts’an (Sosan) wrote
"Do not seek for the truth;
only cease to cherish your opinions."
I believe that this is still great advice for anyone who wants to live with their eyes open.
Dr Jane.
"It just means that you are "pre-judging" another person or group of people based purely on your own preconceptions"
Clearly to take facts and stew them into prejudices takes a real lover of fiction.
Sorry to disappoint Dr. Jane. My religion forbids judging anyone.
Hello playmates, here are the facts so far from Earnestlee.
‘If we could boot out the bad eggs then Bolt would be left with no argument or audience.’ I beg to differ Earnest. A quick look at the history of anti-immigration activity in this country would reveal that high activity occurs in tandem with economic hardship, having little corrolation with rates of crime amongst immigrants.
‘I certainly don’t accept value systems which conflict with my own’ (No, you don’t Earnest, you sure don’t) and think it is high time someone stated emphatically that immigrants should respect those of their hosts. This has always been an expectation and happily accepted by millions of "new Australians"’. Well yeah, except of course the new Australians who practiced their own values of shooting black people for fun and profit. Then instituting a White Australia policy.
‘Basically it is up to the individual to grow with times and circumstances (thats right Earnest, even those who wish they didn’t have to adapt to the wearing of headscarfs by their fellow Australians) and to make "their space" comfortable without infringing on a neighbours’ comfort.’ All true Earnest, but I don’t see how that supports your arguement.
‘I can no more comment on other’s cultures than I can change my parents.’ Less factual, since you do actually comment on other cultures, but cannot change your parents. In the interests of getting this post past Marni I will refrain from commenting on your parents, or changing my culture.
‘The "Hosts" are obviously the natives.’ Well not according to you Earnest, as you point out in your next fact.
‘I don’t understand the prejudice against the core host culture. Mongrel European, backwoods maybe, provided pleasure and inspiration.’ While not really understanding your point I am willing to concede the fact that you don’t understand the prejudice. In fact I am pretty sure your lack of understanding lies at the core of our problem.
‘But the arguement against immigration is economic not cultural. This land cannot support or sustain this population. Australia enjoyed the highest standard of living in the 1890s and since third highest in the late 1940s has been descending rapidly. There has to be a return to self sustainability.’ I guess some of this can be construed as facts, although they are presented as unsupported assertions, but the real problem is that you present them as inter-related, but provide no evidence that, for example, immigration is responsible for the alledged descending standard of living. It might also be pointed out that we still enjoy a far better standard of living than the countries our refugees are fleeing. I am not aware of the self-sustainability movement but assume it tries to achieve sustainability for self while screwing over the third world.
And to our final facts. ‘Sorry to disappoint, Dr Jane.’ Disingenuous at best. ‘My religion forbids judging anyone’ Again, a little inaccurate. I will take the punt that you are referring to Christianity and what that actually says is judge not that ye be not judged, or somesuch doggerel. But even in that context you might try to apply it rather than just saying it.
Ciao players.
Ernesto!
The only thing in your statements that disappoints me is the apparrent disconnect between your expressed religious beliefs, and your words.
If you are referring to christianity, I would suggest the most important message in the new testament is to "Do unto others as you would have done to you." This was Jesus’ commandment to replace the old testament 10. Instead of a list of prohibitions, it is an exhoration to imagine yourself in the other person’s position, (this requires empathy), and them to treat them accordingly.
If everyone behaved in this fashion consistently we would require no laws forbidding any sort of behaviour.
Dr Jane.
Dear Dr Jane,
I was happy to leave you with the last word except for your reference to laws. But laws have never stopped a War.
Rather I would endorse Michael’s conclusion as the only hope for a peaceful world.
" But there is also a small group of Western extremists who have committed terrible crimes against people in the Muslim world and would like to commit more of them. They’re presidents and prime ministers, people like John Howard, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and many more. We must create a space to reject them all, to stand for human rights and against the slaughter of innocents."
(This comment has been deleted.)
(This comment has been deleted.)
(This comment has been deleted.)