Tolerating intolerable nonsense

Mar 23, 2007

Tolerating intolerable nonsense

Following on from my previous piece on Harmony Day and the benefits of cultural diversity, it was a bit sad, and faintly pathetic, to see The Australian choose that very day to run a rather lame opinion piece trying to do a hatchet job on multiculturalism.

The article was by Queensland University law Professor James Allen and consisted of the tired old trick of putting up two definitions of multiculturalism, one purporting to be an old definition, which happens to be excessively narrow and benign:

the phenomenon of restaurants serving foods from across the world: food that was, on the whole, far better than the then bog standard Anglo-Saxon fare.

along with

novel dances, different music, unusual art, and so on.

and the other definition so extreme and broad that it is nothing but a caricature:

the spoken or unspoken proposition that no culture’s beliefs, practices or achievements are any better (or worse) than any other’s,

and

the feeling or sense (for it is rarely openly defended) that tolerance is always good, that there is no limit to what one should be tolerant of and prepared to defer to.

Prof Allen then sets about attacking the caricature, as though it had some connection to the real world.

We should strive to be tolerant of much in life. But not everything. It is not a good thing but a bad thing to tolerate the neo-Nazi thug, the child-murdering suicide bomber, the serial rapist, the fanatic who professes to have a pipeline to God and aims to kill those who disagree.

Of course the new multiculturalism never makes such absolutist support of tolerance explicit. To do so would reveal how absurd such a thorough-going refusal to pass judgment ultimately is. But that absolutism is nevertheless there, lurking quietly in the dark corners of this modern-day catechism.

So there you have it. No one ever says multiculturalism involves an absolutist notion of tolerance (apart from those who are verballing it as a means of attacking it), but despite the fact that its harshest critics accept that no one has ever said this, apparently it is none the less true, a belief “lurking quietly in the dark corners.”

And despite the fact that Professor Allen himself says no one ever says that multiculturalism involves an absolutist notion of tolerance, none the less “our schools treat some of this dogma as near gospel, to be force-fed to our children.” Those teachers must be very clever, teaching (let alone ‘force-feeding’) something to children without ever actually expressing it.

I hope Professor Allen requires better standards of proof than this when he is teaching law to his University students.

85 Comments, Comment or Ping

drjon

Sad to see a Law Professor descending to Straw Man arguments.

I would have expected much better. But it looks like it’s an ideologically driven attack, so I guess I shouldn’t expect too much.

I guess standards in Universities are dropping. Be nice if we had a proper University System again.

Mar 23rd, 2007
Rob again

Prof Allen clearly shouldn’t doesn’t have the honest academic skills required his position at a university. But then maybe one gets better federal grants from spin-doctoring?

Mar 23rd, 2007
Lynette2

Professors are people too and as vulnerable to personal quirks as anyone else.

Having said that, his attitude stinks. To use his title in an article that plays fast and loose with specifics is very, very naughty.

Mar 23rd, 2007
Megan

Professor Stuart Macintyre’s chapter on universities in ‘Silencing Dissent’ is a quick, but good comphrehensive read if you’re interested in finding out more about the erosion of academic freedom over the past decade.

Mar 23rd, 2007
Donna

He’s a law professor, and yet he has an opinion piece published as if his opinion is qualified. His opinion is no more qualified and just as biggoted as Pauline Hanson on this topic.

Mar 23rd, 2007
philip travers

And the Anu. wants to give a Honours award to Lee Kuan Yew!?There is a censor working over at The Sydney Morning Herald,or my non academic opinion of academics didnt meet the academic requirements of proper and distinct language use for the reasons and emotions,I dare have on the subject.But,I suppose Yew believes he built a culture,and Prof. Allen keys thinks he has unlocked a dynamic of future job security,by waxing eloquently on matters,heretofore hung out to dry by Prof.EMERITUS Pauline Hanson.What lofty people I refer to..makes you proud to have no signs of senility in the cast of players tenured at Australian Universities,as they train the high minded for the greater tomorrow with the greatest good in mind.Can I say that again for my self acceptance speech !?

Mar 23rd, 2007
nasking

Would you expect any less from the puppets of the KINGMAKER?…it’s all wedge issues of convenience…I’m sure they don’t mind migrants provided they serve drinks & clean their pools for a minimum wage.

Mar 23rd, 2007
The Feral Abacus

Lynette2 & Donna, good academic manners dictate that academic titles should only be attached to public pronouncements when making statements within your area of expertise. Most academics take this protocol seriously – I’ve seen instances of academics making public political comments within their area of expertise who have elected to not cite their awards.

To be fair to Prof Allen, he hasn’t used his qualification in his byline. The Australian, on the other hand, has had a bet each way by making sure that readers know who he is.

“If there’s anyone out there who prefers a processed cheese sandwich on white bread to a Thai green curry or an Indian aloo gobi, I haven’t met the person.” Hmmm – sounds like Prof Allen hasn’t ventured very far into greater Brisbane as yet – perhaps its an opportunity to accuse him of being an ivory tower academic.

BTW, it seems that his area of interest is in the philosophy of law, rather than law per se, which might explain the references to Hume and the ancient Greeks.

FYI, Prof Allen’s UQ webpage states “He is delighted to have moved to a country without a bill of rights (the ACT one being too insignificant really to count).”

Mar 23rd, 2007
Graham Bell

The Feral Abacus:
You made two very good points about adademics not waving their titles around outside their field of expertise …. and about the news media revealing [or concealing] more than their contributors might do themselves.

Andrew Bartlett:
Please do not underestimate the damage done by people who used multiculturalism to further their own selfish personal agenda.

For instance, those who slandered One Nation voters as vicious dimwitted racists did the cause of multiculturalism no good at all; those who vilified all native-born Australians following the Cronulla riots did nothing for multiculturalism either. In both cases, finding out why these things happened would have been far more productive than merely shrieking abuse.

It was not that multiculturalism itself was to blame but the perception is now set in concrete that those who support multiculturalism are those who hate and despise Aussies too. [ Whether the flames "anti-Aussie multiculturalism" were fanned unobtrusively by Coalition supporters for cheap but highly effective political advantage is, as yet, unproven].

Mar 24th, 2007
philip travers

Let me be corrected.The One Nation Party finds no solace in Philosophy of Law ,and, anyone who accuses them of dim witted racism should show their lack of credentials first, their relevance to what racism and multiculturalism doesnt mean,and finally must believe as God and country would stand before you,that only people who saw the truth of Cronulla bear arms with the Oldfields,A Great Ride,and Pauline Hanson. All resemblances to real people are simply the problem of language and mass circulation newspaper perception.The Police were in cloud cuckoo land at the time when they arrested………………….a 25 year old.

Mar 24th, 2007
Graham Bell

Philip Travers:
So do you really believe that slagging off at the majority of ordinary native-born Australians will promote tolerance and harmony, do you?

Or that projecting the attitudes and actions of a tiny handful of hot-heads onto everyone else will help the cause of multiculturalism?

Or that insulting people is the best way to change their attitudes?

Or that there is no need whatsoever to look for causes when things go wrong?

Or that refusing to listen to the real – to them – concerns and criticisms of voters is a sure-fire way to electoral success?

Yeah, right …..

Mar 24th, 2007
thordaddy

Graham Bell,

Do not believe that Mr. Bartlett has “underestimated” the “damage done” by those who espouse “multiculturalism.” I believe it is much more accurate to suggest that Mr. Bartlett understates the “damage done” and does so consciously.

The Prof. seems to highlight the two extremes of “multiculturalism.” The first extreme is the definition held on by the masses, mostly ignorant and young, who equate “multicuturalism” with different food, colorful clothing and queer festivals. On the other end are those philosophical types who recognize the almost sheer meaninglessness of the term “multiculturalism,” but use it as a stance to give exaltation to foreign cultures while seemingly denigrating the native culture.

One thing is for sure, the need for an infusion of foreign cultures (practical multiculturalism) has never been less needed in this age of incredible mobility and mass communication.

Mar 25th, 2007
Geoff

Multiculti is a complete crock Andrew, you know that. You always stifle debate on it, I’m very surprised you started this topic. I wonder how long it will last.

Multiculti is a divisive social policy foisted upon us by a small group of lobbyists. It was never put to a referendum for the people to decide as such a major social policy should have been. Both Fraser and Hawke have admitted they would not and did not do so because it wouldn’t have got up.

The definition has changed at least 3 times in attempts to make it more acceptable to the wider public. Even Mark Latham thought it was a crock. Bill Hayden said it should be killed stone dead.

Mar 25th, 2007
muzzmonster

Geoff, I’ve never been able to figure out what you think multiculturalism is and why you think it’s so bad.

And how many times can you name when a major social policy was put to referendum? It doesn’t happen in Australia.

Mar 25th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

Thanks for verballing me once again Thordaddy – it is very kind of you to do this so consistently. I think this comment of yours says all that needs to be said about the blind spot of so many monoculturalists:

One thing is for sure, the need for an infusion of foreign cultures (practical multiculturalism) has never been less needed in this age of incredible mobility and mass communication.

Right – so the time when people from all different cultures are physically engaging and communicating with each other more fully, rapidly and comprehensively than ever before, is precisely the time when you say we don’t need multiculturalism. I think non sequiter is the simplest description I can give to your reasoning.

Geoff – I’m not sure why you’d be “surprised I started this topic”. It’s a key campaign area of mine, so I rarely stop on the topic. Which also makes your accusation that “I always stifle debate on it” decidedly hollow. Over nearly 3 years, I’ve done 57 posts on the topic of immigration, multiculturalism and citizenship. People have been able to post comments on almost everyone of those posts. From a quick scan, I counted 6 of them with over 100 comments, while another 7 attracted over 50 comments.

In my experience, it is mostly the champions of the new political correctness who stifle debate in this area, howling down anyone who speaks up for the many and growing benefits of multiculturalism, or speaks out against discriminatory migration and social policies.

However, to go back to my first point, multiculturalism is simply a description of reality of modern Australia (and Canada and many other countries). We can either facilitate it, and reap the benefits, or pretend it’s not real, fight against it, and lose some of those benefits.

Mar 25th, 2007
thordaddy

Mr. Bartlett,

You say,

[M]ulticulturalism is simply a description of reality of modern Australia (and Canada and many other countries).

Which is the same as saying that “multiculturalism” is more or less meaningless verbiage that tells us nothing exceptional about life or culture.

The only thing that really matters concerning “multiculturalism” is whether the next foreign culture ushered forth is good or bad for the society it is being thrust upon. This is the question that many “multiculturalists” decide to ignore giving them the taint of being unconcerned for the native culture or lending credence to the idea that all cultures are equal in value and worth. In fact, those two positions feed upon each other in the minds of many “multiculturalists.”

Mar 26th, 2007
ken

I would be intertested Mr Thordaddy in whcih cultures are more or less equal, as implied in the penultimate sentence?

I’d also be interested in the concept of value as you put it?

Mar 26th, 2007
Geoff

Well that’s funny Andrew because I’m sure that every time I start posting on your Multiculti topics, you shortly after stop them. Without fail.

How can a single Nation consist of many National cultures?

Mar 26th, 2007
Geoff

Muzz…

[edit] Referendums and plebiscites by year
(Bold entries denote proposals that were carried)

1906 Senate Elections
1910 State Debts, Surplus Revenue
1911 Trade and Commerce, Monopolies
1913 Trade and Commerce, Corporations, Industrial Matters, Trusts, Monopolies, Railway Disputes
1916 Military Service (plebiscite)
1917 Military Service (plebiscite)
1919 Legislative Powers, Monopolies
1926 Industry and Commerce, Essential Services
1928 State Debts
1937 Aviation, Marketing
1944 Post-War Reconstruction and Democratic Rights
1946 Social Services, Marketing, Industrial Employment
1948 Rents and Prices
1951 Communists and Communism
1967 Parliament, Aborigines
1973 Prices, Incomes
1974 Simultaneous Elections, Mode of Altering the Constitution, Democratic Elections, Local Government Bodies
1977 Simultaneous Elections, Senate Casual Vacancies, Referendums, Retirement of Judges, National Song (plebiscite)
1984 Terms of Senators, Interchange of Powers
1988 Parliamentary Terms, Fair Elections, Local Government, Rights and Freedoms
1999 Establishment of Republic, Preamble

How many of those would you consider less important or as important than changing Australian society into a society of many National cultures instead of one National culture? Where people can retain their previous National identity and culture without having to Assimilate or Integrate into ours? Which begs the question why come here in the first place if not to become Australian?

Mar 27th, 2007
thordaddy

Ken,

I am not taking the position that all cultures are equal in value. This is the position of many who, having moved beyond “multiculturalism” as merely different food, cool clothing and queer festivals, actually view it as an ideological position.

Mr. Bartlett has said what I think the Prof. in his original piece was hinting at and that is that “multiculturalism” has no inherent value as a term that gives us greater meaning about life or culture.

Once we move beyond different things that different groups of people do (multiculturalism), what is the essence of a “multiculturalist” policy? It is an ideological position that ushers in foreign cultures without regard to their real effects on the native culture giving the impression that its adherents believe in the equality of all cultures. It’s nonsense, IMHO.

Mar 27th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

That’s very good, Thordaddy. Not only do you verbal me, you verbal a whole bunch of other people too. Define something to be what it isn’t, and attack everyone who disagrees with you as though they believe the falsehood you;ve constructed. Dishonest is the politest description I can come up with, although given your amazing persistence at this practice, it’s hard not to use other words.

I suggest you try to have a go at engaging with what people actually say, rather than arguing with yourself in an artifically constructed bubble. You might even find it more interesting – opening you mind up to views other than your own can be quite a positive experience.

Mar 27th, 2007
ken

“I am not taking the position that all cultures are equal in value.”

I know that Mr Thordaddy – that was the point of my cast – what i would like you to tell us is which cultures are of mnore value and which are of less value – and what criteria do you use to define value.

Mar 27th, 2007
Paul Walter

Thordaddy, you “are not taking the position that all cultures are equal in value”.
So you think therefore that some are better than others?
Which ones? What criteria do you employ to value the “better” (or “worse”?
Attitude to others?
Technology?
(ab)Uses of technology?
Approaches to metaphysical issues?
historical “breaks”/disadvantages?
Please allow readers an insight into your methodology, that we too may be unburdened of our ignorance.
‘Aufklarung’ beckons?

Mar 27th, 2007
muzzmonster

Geoff, I disagree that multiculturalism is many national cultures. More to the point, all “National cultures” comprise of many different aspects, whether or not those aspects represent the different countries (or cultures) we’ve come from.

Australia has a bush or outback culture, a beach culture, a northern-beaches yuppie culture, a western suburbs bogan culture, and the list goes on.

When poeple come to Australia, they bring parts (but not all) of their culture with them and leave parts behind; the same way two very different wehite cultures (prisoners and authority) arrived in 1788 to meet with the many different aboriginal cultures already present.

Mar 27th, 2007
Geoff

Unfortunately Andrew has restricted the amount of posts etc here these days so that makes debate etc a bit difficult.

Culture touches every aspect of a society.

Better is always going to be subjective.

How many aspects would you accept in making one culture better than another. English for instance is almost a global language. many countries teach it as a 2nd language. I expect that in that respect it’s better to be from an English speaking one than one that speaks Innuit.

Some cultures practice female mutilation/circumcision. Do you consider a society that doesn’t better or worse?

Muzz, honestly how disingenuous of you… so there are no such things as national cultures? Therefore there is no such thing as an Australian culture or an American culture or Japanese etc, etc, etc…. fine then what the hell is multiculturalism about and why do people identify themselves by another National culture. Italians, Greek, Vietnamese, Lebenese, etc, etc, etc… If they don’t identify as Australian then they are not Australian. Multiculti supports the existence of foreign cultures within another. Foreign societies within another. This is not about assimilation or integration as some Multiculti supporters think, this is about social division.

Mar 27th, 2007
thordaddy

Ken and Paul,

It’s a process of simple logic.

If we recognize “multiculturalism” as a “reality of modern Australia” as implied by Mr. Bartlett then we accept the notion that Australia consists of multiple cultures.

These multicultures are either native or “foreign” in origin (or a combination of both) and have either equal or unequal standing amongst the citizens of Australia.

If we accept these “multi”-cultures as equal in status as recognized by society then the whole enterprise of “multiculturalism” becomes meaningless as Australia seems to be ushering in “foreign” cultures that add no additional “value” to the native Australian culture(s).

If we accept that cultures are unequal by the very nature of epitomizing a certain group of people’s nation, ethnicity, thinking, ideas, customs, etc. then we are forced to make judgements on which “foreign” culture(s) are likely to add or detract from the native Australian culture.

So my question to you must be answered first because we aren’t clear where you stand and so I may be wasting time explaining something that holds no sway in your mind.

Do you think cultures are inherently equal or unequal? The answer to the this question will at least give me the possibility of explaining something you might believe in.

Mar 28th, 2007
arielladrake

Shorter thordaddy: I won’t answer your question until I have assurances that you will agree with me.

Aside from that, your idea that something equal adds no value to a collection of things it is equal to is rather absurd. Equality is not sameness. Is this really so difficult?

Mar 28th, 2007
thordaddy

arielladrake,

Don’t you see the silliness in the continued willingness to shut down all types of definitions for “multiculturalism” while refusing to profer one’s own? “Multicultural” advocates play right into the idea that “multiculturalism” adds nothing unique to life or culture when the term remains deviously undefined.

Are the “multi”-cultures that Mr. Bartlett claims are the “reality of modern Australia…?”

1. Definable cultures that legitimate the meaning of “multiculturalism?”

2. Definable multiple cultures that are equal?

3. Definable multiple cultures that are unequal?

And please use whatever criteria/definition for “equality” you wish to use.

Mar 28th, 2007
muzzmonster

I think you missed my point Geoff. I don’t think there is any one single monolithic Australian (or any national) culture.

Rather we comprise of many identities. Personally I identify as Australian, as male, as a supporter of various sporting teams, as a white person of English and Scottish descent, as a student and also worker, as a pedestrian, motorist, cyclist and public transport user, as someone involved in political debates (there aren’t that many of us), as someone from a christian (specifically Uniting Church) background. None of them take specifc precedence over the other.

I accept that everyone in Australia (immigrant or not) identifies with many different things – all of which could be classified as cultures. I don’t expect – nor would I want – everyone to identify the same way.

And I think most immigrants to this country identify as Australian, yet retain a part of their “homeland” within their hearts.

Mar 28th, 2007
Geoff

Oh no Muzz I understand only too well… you say you identify as Australian and then say there is no such thing as an Australian.

Next thing we know you’ll be identifying cultures in petri dishes.

We have an Australian culture Muzz…
Those others identifying as Lebanese etc are not Australian.

Sorry, can’t explain it any more simply for you.

Mar 28th, 2007
Deborah

Nice arse covering thordaddy, I almost heard your feet skidding as you did an about turn!

First you imply that all cultures and therefore peoples, are not of equal value and worth. Then when challenged on that statement (as you should be), you stumble upon some foreign and native concept. Then, to reinforce, you add once again, that people from other cultures do not add value (as opposed now to be of lesser value and worth).

Geoff, If they are over here, and Australian citizens, then they are Australian, however much many Australian born citizens may want to believe the opposite.

Is this Australian culture of which you speak our Aboriginal Indigenous culture, or are you talking about our British colonial imperialist past history?

Mar 29th, 2007
Deborah

Where’s the invaluable, widely esteemed and notorious John Tracey when you need him?

Mar 29th, 2007
Geoff

Well Deb any aboriginal that considers themselves Australian I’m happy to do so. But many do not and they describe the Australian Western culture as stupidly as you do.

Funny you mention past in relation to one only. Funny which one you pick.

I consider Australia is identifiable as BI-cultural… the Australian “Indigenous” culture and the Australian “Western” Culture.

But Lebanese is not Australian.
Nor is Greek or Italian.
Nor is Japanese.
Vietnamese, Macedonian, Croatian, Serbian, Hungarian, German, etc, etc, etc….

Australian is a national culture clearly identifiable on the world stage. Just as Americans are and their Indigenes.

Mar 29th, 2007
thordaddy

Deborah,

If you could kindly provide my quotes substantiating your claims along with your definition of “multiculturalism” then you may perhaps enhance this debate.

Mar 29th, 2007
muzzmonster

Geoff, We obviously disagree about what a national culture is. I am happy for people to feel connections to more than one nation, whereas you seem to allow only one identity.

I’m not sure if it’s worth us debating this point back and forth with no sign of resolution or remote meeting of minds. Perhaps I should get on with my study instead.

Mar 29th, 2007
Geoff

Good grief Muzz.

I’m happy for Australians to be Australian and Japanese to be Japanese.

I’m not so happy about “Australians” who are Lebanese.

It’s pretty easy to see what a national culture is Muzz… take your blinkers off.

Andrew could you please lift this stupid limit on your topics?
How can everybody be answered if you limit us to 2 responses?

Mar 29th, 2007
The Feral Abacus

Graham Bell – back at #9 you commented about the way that criticisms of One Nation have been received in your community. I’m interested in this – it seems to me that messages on contentious social issues are received quite differently depending on which part of Australia one comes from.

Racist extremists in the southern states suddenly became much bolder and much more vocal when One Nation appeared. There’s no doubt in my mind that they saw Pauline Hanson as a kindred spirit, and that they saw One Nation as a vehicle for furthering their aims. Hence many people were very critical of One Nation policies – and some of the party’s supporters – because they saw them as potentially being socially destructive.

It also seems to me that up North, people tend to react to something about the Hanson gestalt, rather than to the substance of what she says. Its as though they hear things that she hasn’t actually said, and sometimes not heard things she did say. Perhaps this is another of those issues of perception.

“Whether the flames “anti-Aussie multiculturalism” were fanned unobtrusively by Coalition supporters for cheap but highly effective political advantage is, as yet, unproven”

By my unreliable recollection, comments by some tory politicians encouraged that view. I think a look over contemporaneous threads on this site would indicate other sources.

Mar 29th, 2007
muzzmonster

How about “Australins” who are English Geoff? Is that any different?

And what would you say to those million or so “Australians” who live in other countries? Are they supposed to check in their Australian values at customs?

Mar 30th, 2007
Geoff

No difference Muzz…. nor Americans… except both those cultures are much more compatible with ours.

As for Aussies O/S… if they are migrants they should become Americans or Japanese or Italians etc, etc, etc… why else would they migrate and become citizens?

Try pinning “bigotry” on someone else Muzz.
I find that most disappointing of you.

Mar 30th, 2007
muzzmonster

Just trying to figure exactly where you’re coming from Geoff. As I said before, looks like we’re going to disagree on this one.

I reckon there’s not much to be gained from this topic. Let’s see if Andrew brings up global warming again. Or maybe we can find some other issue.

Mar 30th, 2007
Donna

Geoff

Just thinking about the concept of who is included, and who is excluded, from a notion of an authentic ‘Australian culture’.

My Mum tells me of job advertisements in the paper, The Courier-Mail I presume, when she was a young woman in her late teens, early twenties (this is going back fifty years or so).

Institutions, such as The Bank of NSW, would advertise positions stating ‘Catholics need not apply’.

So there was a time when decendents of Irish immigrants were also rejected as members of an Australian culture, and excluded from the same rights as other Australians.

Mar 31st, 2007
Geoff

I only have 2 replies Deb and I hate to waste it on strawmen.

BUT… The Bank of NSW isn’t the Australian Government nor does it represent all Australian or a majority thereof.

Not only Irish are Catholics.

But if Catholics saw themselves apart from Australian society or as Irish apart from Australian society and hence not Australian, then they weren’t Deb.

The Courier Mail would put you in the “Redneck” State not NSW wouldn’t it Deb?

Nice of you to go back 50 years to try and make a point but Multiculti didn’t exist them and Catholicism is a religion not a Nationality.

Mar 31st, 2007
Donna

Geoff

It’s Donna, not Deb.

You’re right. The Bank of NSW isn’t the Fed Gov. Never said it was. It’s just an example of explicit cultural bigotry.

Catholics were excluded from Australian main stream society pre 1950s. In fact, I can recall attending a lecture in the mid 80s where the lecturer lectured on the compa rison between ‘Catholic and Protestant work ethics’. It was the first time I experienced discrimination.

Yes, totally agree on The Courier-Mail and redneck territory. So there’s no rednecks in NSW?

You’re probably quite correct that a concept of multiculturalism wasn’t strong in the 1950s. It was quite explicit racism. Thank God Mum and Dad were only Catholics and not Indigenous.

And Catholicism is not just a religion, it’s a culture. Maxine McKewn says she belong to the tribe. So do I. I don’t consider myself religious (but don’t tell God). People like my Mother experienced quite extraordinary discrimination in the 50s and earlier. She talked about the bullying at school. You know, kids stuff … ‘Catholic dogs croak like frogs and eat no meat on Sundays’. She laughs at it now.

Mar 31st, 2007
Geoff

Donna… ok.
I’m tempted just to say don’t waste my time, but that would mean I’m down to one post.

Who is Maxine McKewn?

1. A bank doesn’t define a national culture nor does it’s employment parameters.

2. I think you will find there were Catholics here since 1788.

3. The Courier mail is a Qld newspaper. Did it exist in NSW? I don’t recall it ever did but you may be older than me.

4. Multiculti as a policy never existed in australia till the 70s Donna. In the 50s Assimilation existed as did the White Australia Policy.

5. Yes many Indigenes across the world were not well treated by the dominant society. But that is due to many reasons.

6. Catholicism IS a religion Donna. it is NOT a NATIONAL culture. Religion makes up part of a society unless you are a Muslim. Then you get Religious states and Religion as a total way of life which includes politics. BTW not all Christians are Catholics.

7. Yes many people experience “discrimination.” Abstudy and jobs exclusively for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders for example. Women only gyms. Just to name a few.

8. I’m sure we have all been bullied at some time at school I know I have and I’m NOT Catholic.

I suggest instead of building strawmen about Multiculti from your own religious obsessions. Like your Mum you need to learn to laugh a bit.

And here I was thinking Catholics ate fish on Fridays?

Please no more strawmen.

A religion is NOT a National culture.

Apr 1st, 2007
muzzmonster

I’m wondering Geoff, if someone comes from Italy, should they never play bocce again, because it’s not part of Australian culture?
If someone comes from China, should they never practice tai-chi, because it’s not part of Australian culture?
If someone comes from Senegal, should they never speak Wolof again, because it’s not part of Australian culture?
if someone comes from Japan, should they never east sushi again, because it’s not part of Australian culture?
If someone comes from Brazil, should they never dance salsa again, because it’s not part of Australian culture?
If someone comes from Scotland, should they never drink whisky again, because it’s not part of Australian culture?
If someone comes from Pakistan, should they never never wear a salwar kameez again, because it’s not part of Australian culture?

To me, all these things are acceptable in Australia without in any way diminishing what Australian culture is made up of. In fact, I think it’s enriching.

Apr 1st, 2007
Graham Bell

The Feral Abacus [on 37; back on 29th March]

Sorry about the delay in responding. Yes, I tend to agree with your observations.

Pauline Hanson, when she appeared, filled a whopping big vacuum in Australian politics, she was a voice for many who were alienated, scorned, dispossesed, oppressed and ignored and an avowed Australian nationalist and a battler as well.

She was a God-send to those who were so fed up with being told that their women were immmoral [the majority of single parents are widowed, divorced or separated - NOT prostitutes!!], that they were lazy and dole-bludgers [most had worked hard all their lives; had lost - or were at risk of losing - their jobs, farms or family businesses through takeovers, downsizing, loss of markets, globalization, etc.; had demonstrable skills but few formal qualifications], that they were “racists” [when so many were far MORE tolerant than those screaming abuse at them], that they had no culture and no history [what snobbery excised gardening, woodwork, quilt-making, photography and the like from "culture"; and what are local and family stories that go way back beyond living memory if not "history"?].

Pauline Hanson, for all her many many obvious faults and short-comings did something no major political party had bothered to do: …. speak up for the Despised Other, for Australia’s very own Untermenschen, for ordinary Aussies.

They loved her for it …. and they still do. Like it or not, quite a few Aborigines and migrants think she great.

The racist, foreign-inspired “right-wing” groups hate her guts but they have to smile through gritted teeth whenever voters mention her name; she did by accident what they failed to do in half-a-century of nasty plotting. :-)

Lib-Lab party tacticians who think they can imitate her with a cardboard cut-out “Flat Dinkum Aussie” are in for a very rude shock.

Apr 1st, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

Geoff makes my point well

50 years ago we didn’t have multiculturalism as a philosophy, we had monoculturalism and assimilation. And that manifested itself with precisely the sort of advertisment (and attitudes) which Donna describes – Catholics were explicitly discriminated against because they were seen to be outside or incompatible with the dominant group’s view of what Australia should be like.

Geoff also says “if Catholics saw themselves as apart from Australian society …. and hence not Australian, then they weren’t.” Which describes my parents’ experience, as well as Donna’s – but was hardly their choice.

A good example of precisely why we need to support and promote multiculturalism.
You can substitute Catholic for Jewish or Muslim, or various other non-Anglocentric cultures, to the attitude which Donna detailed, to show where monoculturalism leads – only people ‘like us’ allowed.

It’s not very different to the view that Indigneous Australians should become ‘like us’ if they want to overcome their disadvantage. Not only is it unreasonable to expect people to jettison their own identities and cultures to obtain equality, insisting on this also means the rest us miss out on the benefits which the different insights and perspectives of those other cultures would contribute
(also shown with the loss our wider society continues to experience by not valuing, connecting and integrating with the cultures of our Indigenous peoples)

Australia (and other countries like Canada) have shown that it is quite possible to maintain connection to your own identity and culture whilst integrating effectively into the culture of a wider society.

Pluralism and diversity are at the core of democracy (as well as being valuable mechanisms for economic growth). Our country is multicultural anyway, which makes it doubly crazy not to grasp all the opportunities which that presents by acknowledging and working with that reality, rather than trying to block it out

Apr 1st, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

Mentioning my parents’ experience in the above comment has reminded me of just have changing the notion of ‘being Australian’ is. As I mentioned at the end of this speech on our (mostly good) new Citizenship Act, I recently saw a copy of an old resume my father had written when he was in his early 20s – which was the mid 1940s. In amongst all his qualifications and work experience, date of birth, marital status and the like, he listed his nationality – British.

He was born in Sydney in 1924, as were both his parents in the late 1800s. He had never even been outside Australia, yet his official nationality was British.

This was simpy a legal fact at the time. The legal notion of Australian citizenship did not exist until 1948, and even then Australians were still British subjects (arguably except for Indigenous Australians, who literally weren’t counted until the 1967 referendum) until 1986. To add to the confused sense of identity, for a short while in the mid 1980s, Australians were British subjects under Australian law, but not under British law.

Trying to establish a single, rigid, definable national culture and insist that everyone should seek to fit within it has always been to push against reality to some extent, but with the modern world of global communication, movement and markers, it is both unachievable and counter-productive.

Apr 1st, 2007
thordaddy

Mr. Bartlett,

Discrimination against Catholics 50 years ago is no more evidence for the need of a “multiculturalism” policy than discrimination against pedophiles 50 years ago is evidence for a “pro-pedophile” policy in 2007. In fact, a “multicultural” policy that does not discriminate isn’t worthy of the name. I mean, if there isn’t some kind of discrimination then how do Australians know whether you are ushering in unique and beneficial culture and dismissing corrupt and corrosive culture?

But alas, you do practice a “multiculturalism” policy that discriminates and it start with something like this… This post is awaiting moderation. Do you not like this piece of American culture via this particular writer? Are you suggesting that this discrimination against moi is evidence for the need of a “pro-thordaddy” policy? LOL!

Apr 1st, 2007
Geoff

Sorry for the delay… blame Andrew.

No you are right Muzz, they are NOT part of Australian culture. For one who seems to deny there is an Australian culture you certainly seem to know what it is not.

Mind you some of your examples re National culture are a might dodgy.

Sport is part of the Australian culture Muzz.
I suggest the Senegalese learn English to be able to communicate to the wider community and not be isolated Muzz.
I speak French and Italian as well as English… what’s your point?
Eating is a world-wide phenomenon exhibited by humans.

Let’s cut to the chase then eh…

If someone migrates to Australia should they not become Australian? IE; speak and understand Australian English and adopt the Australian life, Australian culture?

Or should they remain; Lebanese, Japanese, Senegalese, Brazilian, Scot, Pakistani.

No one has ever expected a migrant to get amnesia and forget their heritage. My grandparents didn’t forget theirs, yet they became Australians and embraced its culture.

What real benefits does Multiculti actually bring Muzz?
I’ll want real examples too.
BTW I won’t be able to reply for a while due to Andrews ridiculous limits.

Oh and Muzz… in today’s Australia you can do all those things you mentioned without the need for a Multiculti policy.

Apr 1st, 2007
muzzmonster

Thordaddy, It beggars belief that you can even begin to compare discrimination against Catholics (because of what they believe or in what family they were born) to paedophiles (a criminal action taken by individuals)?

The very fact that you attempt this ghastly comparison makes me wonder if any of your arguments are worth reading any more.

Apr 1st, 2007
Graham Bell

Donna [post 41]:
Anti-Catholic discrimination was usually slightly more subtle with “Which schools did you go to?” rather than “What is your level of education?”

Letters of Application which mentioned a convent school [=Catholic/parochial] got the same treatment back then as do similar job applications now from Postcodes 4076, 4305, 2560, 2770. etc., …. the applications went straight into the bin …. and word soon spread that applying to those specific firms was a waste of time and paper, regardless of the outstanding quality of the applicants.

Andrew Bartlett:
There are indeed definable national cultures and they do have many beneficial features but trying to set them in concrete, never to change, and forcing others to adhere to each and every aspect of them is counter-productive.

One of the things that gave Pauline Hanson such an astounding number of votes was the overenthusiastic promotion of migrants’ homeland cultures AT THE SAME TIME AS the culture of native-born Australians was being denied, vehemently despised, belittled or pointedly ignored …. a sure-fire recipe for mischief and mayhem if ever there was one!

Assimilation is now seen as Evil Incarnate but, for people like me, it was a two-way process rather than the over-simplistic imposition of the dominant culture and the extinction of all other cultures.

[My wheelbarrow is empty and ready to take the torrent of abuse and hate, from all those do-badders, for daring to say such things]. ;-)

Apr 1st, 2007
thordaddy

Muzzmonster,

I purposely used my example to show that discrimination, per se, DOES NOT leave one to conclude that a “multiculturalism” policy is needed as Mr. Bartlett had indicated.

In fact, DISCRIMINATION is required for a “multicultural” policy to have ANY meaning. Is not discrimination AGAINST pedophiles a piece of cultural legacy that exists throughout virtually all Western cultures? Is this discrimination evidence for the need of a “multicultural” policy? I think not… And so why would discrimination against Catholics 50 years ago be evidence for a “multiculturalism” policy in 2007?

Apr 2nd, 2007
ken

You aint done toobadd for a doogooder Graham.

I think your about right in #52, mainly becaue of a percpetion, whcih although might not have been a reality is alwasy more powerful than reality.

I don’t nkow why people get excited about this – even the inuits have chnaged over time its what happens. Tribalsim, call it racsim if you like, is a universal value (see there is one) – over time and as generations chnage so the culture will change and some otehr form of human differnce will emerge as the next bogeyman – just get on with it.

Althouhg I’ve alwasy been wary of left footers, ingrained in me at school.

Apr 2nd, 2007
Mercurius

Geoff, I’m getting a very clear inference from your posts that you believe people in Australia should live in a manner that conforms to your idea of what is Australian culture and the Australian way of life.

Why do you think it is necessary to micro-manage and nanny-state the activities of others?

Your call to demonstrate the benefits of multiculturalism is a red herring. Multiculturalism is a liberal policy which says that, beyond the obligations imposed upon us by legislation, we are allowed to live in a manner of our choosing without being forced or oppressed into a lifestyle imposed by others, and certainly not a lifestyle dictated by government fiat.

Multiculturalism is designed to protect us from busybodies who want to decide how we are allowed to behave beyond our basic legal obligations.

That is the benefit of multiculturalism: Personal liberty.

I’ve lived in multicultural Australia since I was six months old. I like to play bocce, occasionally do some tai-chi and yoga, speak passable Japanese and certainly enjoy sushi, try the occasional salsa (which nobody should be forced to witness), cook a mean Thai curry, and enjoy a Scotch whisky.

I’ve never been to the footy, I don’t drive a Holden, I’m not much into meat pies and haven’t a pet kangaroo.

And I’m buggered if I’ll change my lifestyle one jot to conform to yours or anybody else’s idea of what it is to be an Australian, mate.

Apr 2nd, 2007
Geoff

Here’s another one Andrew… excluding your comments that makes 3 I should be responding to.

Yet 2 a day on any one topic??????????
That can get really messy.

“you believe people in Australia should live in a manner that conforms to your idea of what is Australian culture and the Australian way of life.”

Well an Australian would live according to the Australian way of life and therefore it’s culture. Otherwise how do you claim to identify then as Australian? Oh that’s right there are no real Australians.

If I choose to live as an Italian here in Australia, then I am for all intents and purposes an Italian. IF I choose to live as a japanese the same applies. Except perhaps that I wouldn’t be accepted in Japan as japanese due to my race.

I hardly think a National culture is micro-management. Do you suppose speaking English is micro-management?

“Your call to demonstrate the benefits of multiculturalism is a red herring. ”

Well no it’s not and like many others you have FAILED to state even a single benefit.

Apart from prisoners and Aborigines… Personal Liberty has always been available here .

It’s good to see what you think of Australian culture. Are you so bigotted and narrow you think what you have stated about it? Personally I don’t suffer from the same cultural cringe you appear to.

Mate? Well there’s a start eh.

Apr 2nd, 2007
muzzmonster

Yes Geoff. You can do all of those things in Australia. And I think anyone should be able to do so without being hassled.

I’ve seen people abused for not speaking English on a train (as if I spoke Icelandic when I was in Iceland, Japanese when I was in Japan and Arabic when I was in Turkey). Migrants want to learn English so they can get ahead but when talking to others from their home country why use a language in which they cannot express themselves as well.

More to the point, I don’t think doing any of those things makes one any less Australian. In the same way that I don’t feel any less Australian because I don’t like rugby league, the Bathurst 1000, nor do I eat meat and two veges every night.

I think seeing how other people live and the influences they bring to our cuisine, our arts, our music and our literature enriches the world. It’s good to understand that people think and act differently; whether that’s people of another gender, age, place of birth and belief. It expands the mind and allows us to live better with our neighbours.

Apr 2nd, 2007
Andrew Bartlett

I also think you’re broadly right Graham – multiculturalism is about recognising the valuable parts of all cultures, not about denigrating Anglo culture. I agree some perceived it as doing this, and the cultural cringe of a few decades ago may have enhanced this.

It’s a bit like your description of assimilation – for many in the past era it was seen as a two way process, albeit a less conscious one than the policy of integration which lies at the heart of effective multiculturalism. But over time, assimilation has come to be perceived as being about the imposition of the dominant culture – which is not surprising, as it how Geoff and others promote it.

In response to Geoff (#50), I can’t see what is proved by insisting things like ’sport is part of Australian culture’. Many countries like sport, but many Australians don’t. Perhaps fortunately, I like many sports, but I know many Australian born people who don’t. So?

And in response to Geoff’s desire to list the benefits of multiculturalism, here’s a few:
- as evidenced by Thordaddy’s responses, multiculturalism has provided a recognition that discrimination on the grounds of religion, ethnicity or other nationality is undesirable;
- it has given us a much more fully integrated society;
- it has expanded and diversified our cultural experiences and practices;
- it has expanded our intellectual base;
- it has enabled us to get much greater diversity in our society and economy, and to gain more of the economy, cultural and social benefits from that diversity;
- it has increased our business and social networks with many other nations;
- in short, as Mercuris (#55) says, it is a liberal policy, and it brings with it many of the benefits of that philosophy – not the least of which is greater individual freedom

We should also remember that an estimated 20 per cent of Australians also hold citizenship of (at least) one other country, which makes it rather hard to insist they must be either Australian OR something else

Apr 2nd, 2007
Graham Bell

Andrew Bartlett:
Firstly. A personal aspect: given my own background, experiences, attitudes and deeds one would expect me to be a favorite with the multiculturalists …. but the exact opposite happened.

My own life has been enriched so much by the contact I have had with people from other cultures and with very different backgrounds to my own. Nothing that any ever-righteous, deliberately-ignorant bigots, using their own version of “multiculturalism” as a cloak for their own viciousness, can ever take that away from me.

Secondly. No job is perfect …. and in the next parliament, you might have to cope with having Pauline Hanson in the chamber, on commmittees and at social/ceremonial functions. Never mind. Eventually, you’ll be able to knock-off then head home to relax with your family and forget about your fellow Senators …. until you get back to work. [I don't particularly like Pauline Hanson but I do respect how she managed to survive despite what some of her nasty enemies did to her].

Apr 2nd, 2007
The Feral Abacus

Graham Bell – thanks for your response at #46, and return apologies for my sluggardly reply.

The feelings of alienation and disenfranchisement are common amongst voters throughout Australia, but the degree of disaffection does seem to be strongest in Qld. I don’t know why – perhaps it has something to do with the changes to the economy that affected the other states during the 80s & 90s, accompanied by the rise of new managerialism, finally reaching Brisbane c. 2000. Whatever the reason, it is of real concern: its an indication of an unhealthy democracy.

re your comments on assimilation at #52. Unfortunately the actual experience of assimilation for many postwar migrants was very much a one-way process. All those stories of heart surgeons & professors being sent to Tasmania to push ore carts in tin mines are true – I’ve met a couple of them. Their descriptions of immigration officials of the time closely match your descriptions of Veteran Affairs officials in some of your posts on other threads. The more things change…

Saw your #59 while writing this – I’m not sure who you are describing as ‘multiculturalists’. In any case, if you were really that much of a pariah, you would not be welcome over at LP. Yet you seem to fit in pretty well amongst those young-ish, left-ish, muliticultural inner city academic types.

Apr 3rd, 2007
Mercurius

Geoff,: I did state a benefit of multiculuralism: Personal liberty. That’s what multiculturalism protects – the liberty of individuals to live how they please once they have fulfilled their basic legal obligations.

You complacently declare that “personal liberty has always been available here”, yet you fail to understand that liberty requires eternal vigilance. Your totalitarian insistence that we all live according to “the Australian way of life” is a direct threat to the personal liberties that our ancestors fought and died to protect.

And don’t verbal me. I have made no statement that is critical of Australian culture. I have stated my preferences of how I wish to live, and don’t you dare label me a bigot for choosing to live however I please. Not you or the government’s idea of culture can constrain us from living our lifestyle once we have fulfilled our basic legal obligations – that’s multiculturalism.

A national culture, in the manner you propose, is micro-management – and has the potential to become totalitarian. You insist that we should all to behave in a manner consistent with your idea of “the Australian way of life”. How are you going to do that, Geoff? Are you going to hire some Stasi to stand on every street corner and arrest people who behave in an unapproved fashion? What are you going to do with the people who don’t wish to live by your prescriptions? Deport them? Shoot them? Re-educate them in a labor camp? National culture building is a very strong industry in Iran, North Korea and Maoist China.

And I’m delighted you brought up the issue of English-speaking. Since I’m trained as an ESL teacher, I know how to help people get to the shops, buy a bus ticket, explain about our national holidays, explain how to handle and deal with the behaviour of people around them, what to do at social events, in business and at school. I’ve done a lot more to support the integration of people into multicultural Australia than your tub-thumping ever will.

Apr 3rd, 2007
Geoff

So many posts so little room to reply.
“I also think you’re broadly right Graham – multiculturalism is about recognising the valuable parts of all cultures.”
Actually it’s not. You know that. It’s about putting up with “tolerating” other cultures. It’s about transplanting other cultures within an existing one, a very successful one.
As for “recognizing other cultures”… to do so does not require the policy of Multiculti.
I recognize many cultures and their national labels. I’ve managed to do so like my forebears long before the policy of Multiculti.
“It’s a bit like your description of assimilation – for many in the past era it was seen as a two way process, albeit a less conscious one than the policy of integration which lies at the heart of effective multiculturalism.
Errp! Wrong.
Assimilation, Integration and Multiculti are 3 distinct policies. If Integration was the same as Multiculti why was Multiculti necessary? We’ve been over this Andrew and you still deny it.
“But over time, assimilation has come to be perceived as being about the imposition of the dominant culture – which is not surprising, as it how Geoff and others promote it.”
Actually it is how YOU and your fellow Multiculturalists have promoted it Andrew. Instead of accepting it as the inevitable outcome of migrating to another country and culture you have vilified others who expect it and portrayed it as an evil imposition. Racist at it’s heart. You know very well you have.
“In response to Geoff (#50), I can’t see what is proved by insisting things like ’sport is part of Australian culture’.”
Because it is and it is recognized as such across the world Andrew.
Since culture embraces every aspect of a society… it’s hardly likely that everyone will participate in or reflect every aspect of that culture. It doesn’t mean they go into denial and ignore it.
“And in response to Geoff’s desire to list the benefits of multiculturalism, here’s a few: - as evidenced by Thordaddy’s responses, multic

Apr 3rd, 2007
thordaddy

Mr. Bartlett opines,

And in response to Geoff’s desire to list the benefits of multiculturalism, here’s a few:
- as evidenced by Thordaddy’s responses, multiculturalism has provided a recognition that discrimination on the grounds of religion, ethnicity or other nationality is undesirable;

You have this EXACTLY BACKWARDS. It is BECAUSE Australia and most Western Countries have NOT DISCRIMINATED on the basis of “religion, ethnicity or other nationality” that we find ourselves in ever greater strife continually setting up new anti-racism and equality bureaucracies and handing out freebies in order to assuage our audacity to “progress.”

Again, if the above criteria are NOT used to make decisions on what cultures are desirable or undesirable then on what basis is Mr. Bartlett judging cultures…? Good food…? Colorful dress…? Queer festivals…? What exactly?

Apr 3rd, 2007
Geoff

More restrictions Andrew?
How can one debate effectively with so many restrictions?

and ignore it.
“And in response to Geoff’s desire to list the benefits of multiculturalism, here’s a few: - as evidenced by Thordaddy’s responses, multiculturalism has provided a recognition that discrimination on the grounds of religion, ethnicity or other nationality is undesirable;”
I’m sorry these things were recognized before we ever had Multiculti. As for being able to discriminate differences being undesirable, that’s debatable too. If no differences existed we wouldn’t need a policy and laws to force tolerance onto us.
“it has given us a much more fully integrated society;”
Really. How is this so? How is the Eastwood enclave, the Cabramatta enclave, the Lakemba enclave… etc, etc, etc a reflection of that belief?
 ” it has expanded and diversified our cultural experiences and practices;”

Really must I mention enclaves again. BTW education, reading, and travel do the same things all do not require the existence of Multiculti.
“it has expanded our intellectual base;”
Rubbish. Increased population due to increased birthrates or migration does that. Assuming by “ours” you mean Australia’s.
“ it has enabled us to get much greater diversity in our society and economy, and to gain more of the economy, cultural and social benefits from that diversity;”
Care to show how increased imports due to Multiculti and exports have provided us with a net economic benefit?
“ it has increased our business and social networks with many other nations;”
Really? So Globalisation and trade is all Multiculti based eh? I’m sure it existed prior to the policy.
“ in short, as Mercuris (#55) says, it is a liberal policy, and it brings with it many of the benefits of that philosophy – not the least of which is greater individual freedom”
Rubbish. It has brought laws to infringe freedom of speech and increased political correctness to censor and deny dissent.

Apr 3rd, 2007
Mercurius

Geoff, do you have any idea how comical it is that you complain in long vociferous posts that your freedom of speech has been curtailed?
BTW, if you don’t like Andrew’s comments policies, don’t post here. Start your own blog where you can complain in thousands of words that multicultural policies have denied you freedom of speech and crushed your right to dissent. I doubt ASIO will knock down your door and make you disappear.
As for your objection that people might choose to live “as an Italian” or “as a Japanese”, what on earth do you mean? Why don’t you go to Sicily, Calabria, Naples and Milan, and then tell me what living “as an Italian” is? Why don’t you go to Hokkaido, Tokyo and Okinawa, and then tell me what living “as a Japanese” is? Then why don’t you go to Hobart, Broome, Byron Bay, Sydney, Arnhem Land, Kalgoorlie and Port Augusta and then tell me what living “as an Australian” is? Honestly, I’ve met first graders who display a more sophisticated understanding of culture than the views you profess here.

Apr 4th, 2007
Graham Bell

The Feral Abacus [post 60]:

Many people seem to fall into broad categories on Multiculturalism:

[a] Open and neighbourly “Anglo-Celtic” Aussies who recognize difference but look to a person’s character and behavior rather than their race or religion. They should be encouraged, not vilified.

[b] “Anglo-Celtic” Aussies who are suspicious, fearful and resentful of new
arrivals. Occasionally, there is actually a real basis for that [such as laying-off native-born union members then replacing them in the same jobs with back-packers or “457 visa” contractors]. No matter how inelegantly expressed, their concerns should be heard and addressed ….. before a few nasty groups and firms do so and use what they hear to our detriment.

[c] Aussies from migrant families. Although they may have first-hand experience of the problems of settling into a strange country, some do need reminding that old hatreds and imported prejudices have no place in today’s Australia.

[d] Do-gooders; sometimes “more-ethnick-than-the-ethnicks”. Provided they don’t attack others, they just cause embarrassment. Let them be ….
they’re harmless.

[e] Those genuinely concerned about racism and immigration scandals. They
really do need to be educated on how best to target these injustices and not
just to thrash around hurting anyone who does not express concern in
exactly the same way as they do.

[f] Those who pretend to be terribly concerned but in reality don’t give a damn about any “wogs”, “towelheads”, “slopes” or “jungle-bunnies”; they are ruthless; they manipulate multiculturalism to suit their own agenda. Attacking native-born Aussies is an easy way for them to promote their own selfish interests. They are completely amoral so trying to reform them is a waste of time. We need to stop rewarding them for stirring up community discord and instead get as tough with them as we do with rabid racists.

[Shall comment on Queensland later]

Apr 4th, 2007
Geoff

I’ll try to ignore your spurious comments and ad hom mercurius.

I was engaged to an Italian for years, I think I have a fair idea about what an Italian is.

I have spent a lot of time studying japanese culture, so puhlease, comment where you have credibility.

As for my comments to Andrew… I’m sure he understands my points. It’s up to him to act or not.

As for our culture, There is not enough room here for me to comment in one or even perhaps 6 posts, so I’ll add this link in the vain hope you learn something about Australian national culture.

http://www.convictcreations.com/

Apr 4th, 2007
Gabor

The dead stinking corpse of Multi-Kulti has been propped up in the front sitting room since its death very shortly after it was first invited in to ’set awhile’. And in deference to a mad relative, the rest of the family has been forced to ignore its sorry state & play along, offering it tea & cake, complimenting it on its attire. You may rest assured though, that collective sighs of relief are being heard from the family of Australians now the dried, mocking corpse is finally being quietly dismantled & disposed of, even as we still must nod our heads mutely as someone sings its praises.

Multikulti is no reality in the true meaning of the word. It is an artificial political construct. Whether designed to or not, it abases the host culture. And lessens all involved.

If anyone is wishing to become Australian or is emigrating to live or work in Australia, there is a perfectly good culture here for them to use. This organic fashion of assimilation has worked truly for mankind for 10’s of 1000’s of years, taking the cream of skills, ideas & attitudes, & weaving them into the country’s main culture to make it stronger. Without the fuss, without the division, without the rigid, stupid ideology that multikulti is. Humans understand its working instinctively 99% of the time. That, is how culture grows. Through strength & confidence. Not through mistrust, weakness & division.

Just in the same way the English language has proved itself so useful, flexible & resilient. By borrowing & adapting when needed. Organically. Naturally.

And incidentally, the damage historically that such attempts to debase & corrupt language through political dickering with it’s words mirror the type of damage rigid racial & cultural ‘betterment’ doctrines do to a society as a whole. They both are examples of stupid, irrational, vain & mystic appeals like raindances, as opposed to rational management or development strategies. No matter how one tries to disguise them.

Apr 5th, 2007
Mercurius

Graham Bell, that’s a useful taxonomy you present.

Geoff, the culture section of Convict Creations is a useful guide for tourists, with possible application in an ESL classroom. But if that is where you wish to set the bar for cultural understanding, then I could declare myself an authority on every country in the world by reading Lonely Planet guides.

My remarks were not an ad hominen attack. They were an assessment of the level of cultural understanding displayed in your posts, compared with that I have observed in some six-year olds, who understand that it is unwise to generalise from one person (even one you’re engaged to!) to an entire culture, and who understand there are vast regional differences within cultures. Until your posts display a comparable level of subtlety and nuance, I will have no basis on which to alter my view.

I too have studied Japanese culture for many years, and spent as much time there as my scant finances permit. But I would not declare myself to be any kind of expert, as you so glibly do.

Still, since you are so knowledgeable about Japanese culture, I’m sure you’re aware of the very popular bestselling genre of “Nihonjinron”, which for decades has reflected upon, contested, debated and re-defined many times ideas about Japanese culture, and are read and enjoyed by millions of Japanese.

If the Japanese don’t have definitive ideas about their own culture, perhaps you could enlighten them with your bountiful knowledge of who they are and what their culture is.

Apr 5th, 2007
Geoff

Spurious argument and ad hom mercurius… that’s what you post.

I haven’t given an appraisee of any culture to do that would take quite a bit of space.

The fact you still fail to understand that Japanese is a national culture and that all “japanese people” can be identified under that just as Americans and Dutch etc can be is pathetic. You are in denial. If these cultures are not identifiable, why do they exist?

I hardly think there’s room or this here to discuss Japanese nationalism here. Certainly 2000 chars won’t allow it.

Like I said spurious argument. Like I said your needling is annoying, much like a flea.

Apr 5th, 2007
Geoff

A more reading for the Australian culturally bereft.

http://cracker.com.au/viewthread.aspx?threadid=135611&categoryid=11281little

Our culture, the Australian culture, is as worthy of “preservation” and protection as any national culture.

Multicultists talk of many cultures and the need for diversity yet when it comes to the host culture are not concerned about it being equal and part of that diversity. Fortunately many of us see that Multiculturalism already exists at a global level and that is where it belongs.

Apr 6th, 2007
muzzmonster

Gee you people tend to get personal.

I definitely agree with Mercurius’s argument, which was not about nationalism but how different people in a country think differently about their country.

Ask 100 people in the street what their national culture is and you’ll get 100 different answers. Does that mean there is no culture? No – it means that the world and each nation is made up of many different cultures (even if everyone in them is of the same colour and from the same background.)

Apr 6th, 2007
The Feral Abacus

Graham Bell – thanks for your response at #66. Lots to think about there.

One aspect that stands out to me is that the role of govt has been neglected for some years, particularly WRT your groups a] and b]. There was a time when the govt took an active role in encouraging us to accept migrants into our community. Bodies such as the Good Neighbour Council were active in doing this, as I recall. It’s very clear that the need for such bodies still exists.

Re your group f]. Outside of my experience I’d have to say. But then the world seems to be brimful of opportunists of every sort, so there’s bound to be some that will latch on to multiculturalism as their vehicle for personal advancement. I’d say that the problem there lies with the individuals concerned, rather than multiculturalism itself. If the latter ceased to exist, its a fair bet to say that the opportunists would simply move on to something else.

How’s the next instalment going?

Apr 6th, 2007
Graham Bell

The Feral Abacus [back on post 60]”
On disaffection and alienation in Queensland. It definitely does exist but explaining it is far from easy. All I can think of are three factors.

i. Queensland is in two parts – Australian dollars and the English language are used in both. There’s the “South-East”: Brisbane, Ipswich, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. Then there’s “The Rest”. Very different.

ii. Between the 1880s and the 1950s there was a lot of progress and hope in Queensland [even during the Great Depression}; Queensland was world class in so many ways: mining law, health care, etc.. From the 1960s onwards, money certainly increased but social wellbeing - and optimism - declined. [[gee, that's too short even for an abstract!]].

iii. Most political activity is concentrated in the “South-East” so “The Rest” is, in the main, left to just look on; political parties seem to be in there only at election time. Labor has contempt for The Bush. Liberals aren’t interested. The Greens are seen as irrational and downright hostile towards everyone in The Bush. Nationals have, for decades now, put so much emphasis on obedience and conformity that they are seen as policy-free and irrelevant. Australian Democrats would probably best meet the needs of people in the Rest of Queensland but lack resources and so are almost unknown. So that leaves only Family First and the many unobtrusive not-for-election political and religious activism groups listening attentively to people in the Rest of Queensland.

Apr 7th, 2007
Donna

Feral and Graham

Thought I’d add my thoughts.

I think there’s a group that has not been considered. They come somewhere after group c). This group are the children or descendents of post war immigrants who have experienced prosperity in Australia after relative hardships in their war-ravaged countries.

After two generations living in Australia, they seem to have an attitude of being superior immigrants to those ‘queue jumpers’.

Graham, I think you mentioned in one of your posts that Pauline Hanson is a shining light for groups such as single mothers. I don’t think she is. In fact, I think she might be perceived as a danger.

Getting onto the disaffection of Queensland. I don’t know why attitudes prevail in Queensland as they do. It’s always been a ‘them’n us’ culture.

I can remember as a child, a teacher friend of my parents’ always rabbiting on about the Indonesians wanting to invade Australia. There’s always been this fear of the ‘other’ wanting to ‘invade’ or getting preferential treatment.

At the school I teach at, some of the attitudes of the white children are extraordinary. They have staunch views of ‘others’ for such young people without life experience.

I’m wondering if the imaginary evacuation line during WWII, that was set up somewhere near the border with NSW, might play a part in our aliention. That if the ‘Japs invaded’, then Queensland would be sacrificed.

There was also Joh creating economic links with Japan during the 80s, and much Japanese investment in Queensland tourism, creating a fear that ‘they’re going to invade us yet’.

Then during the technology boom, I heard another theory that the ‘Japs may not have been success at invading us during WWII, but they’re now invading us quietly through technology’. Some Queenslanders were convinced that there was some master plot to invade.

Of course Queensland seem to have lost their preoccupation with the Japanese for a while, but other groups have filled the void for them

Apr 7th, 2007
Graham Bell

Donna [post 75];
Thanks. I had sort of included children of DPs/post-WWII migrants in [c]; what say we make them [c.2]? Surprisingly. some of them were major contributors to racism – along with the older top-down economic racism ["don't question the right to deprive blacks of land and put it to better use"] and the virulent racism that came in with the American forces in 1942 [was "koon" part of Australian slang before 1942?].

Fear of invasion is very real in the Rest of Queensland because it was only narrowly averted [we had an air-raid trench in our chookyard]. That this fear has been so successfully manipulated by political splinter groups says more about the vigour of such groups than it does about any intrinsic evil in the citizenry …. and it speaks volumes about the sloth, inappropriateness, misdirection and distraction of groups that could offer an alternative point of view.

It wasn’t fear of invasion that aroused resentment against Japanese and other Asians; it was flogging off productive assets and natural resources at give-away prices by Joh’s mob. For instance; ask any former Queensland professional fisherman what they thought of opening up THEIR fishing grounds to “open-cut mining” by foreign ships for a peppercorn rent; if they had been asked [and they weren't], they would have taken the hat around themselves and got ten times the amount for the Queensland government to retain those fishing grounds for the Queensland fishing industry. Why wouldn’t they then become “racist”?

Apr 7th, 2007
The Feral Abacus

Donna and Graham Bell

While I was living there, it seemed to me that politics in Brisbane were largely dictated by regional concerns and a very powerful rural lobby. I also saw a Labour Govt providing services to the rural sector that no other govt in Australia would provide (though many have now been phased out). And yet the regions feel neglected by Brisbane, as Graham’s comment in #74 indicates. This is one of the apparant paradoxes of Qld politics that I struggle with. Graham Bell – What is it that I am overlooking, or do your comments concern working people in regional centres rather than the farmers & graziers bloc?

In general I saw little passion about politics, and – perhaps unsurprisingly – a very poor understanding of political and administrative due process. But what did surprise me was the strong libertarian streak among grass-roots Nationals supporters. They were the ones who thought Howard had been dodgy over Iraq, who referred to the detention centres as concentration camps, and who were appalled by the Fed govts treatment of David Hicks. Obviously these are voters who are not well served by their representatives.

Apr 7th, 2007
Graham Bell

The Feral Abacus [77]:
One of the reasons industries in rural areas were so successful in Queensland was because of impartial and efficient technical support, such as extension services, by the Dept. of Agriculture & Stock, the Lands Dept. and the Mines Dept. Advice on the same issues from firms tends, instead, to be brand-specific and sales-orientated.

Strangely, it was the Nationals in recent decades who wiped many of these “socialistic” things.

It is the communities’ memory of everything that has been lost that makes the Nationals future quite bleak now. The successes of Barnaby Joyce and Bob Katter Jnr come from them distancing themselves from “that pack of mongrels who sided with the banks when [[here insert any market collapse or natural disaster within living memory]] happened”; likewise the rising success of former National, James Baker.

There is indeed a libertarian and progressive streak alongside the usual conservatism …. its a paradox I don’t fully understand …. but it applies as much to quite a few farmers and graziers as to any workers in the mining industry and in regional centres.

The very poor understanding of political processes come from decades of very active discouragement of interest in politics by Labor and Nationals apparatchiks; no matter how many pretty brochures are on display in a local MP’s office and how many political meetings are held. It’s easier to keep the mugs under control that way; stops awkward questions too. Regional news media doesn’t help by sticking to the same old two-party-prefered entertainment.

There is, on the contrary, quite a lot of political passion but it’s rarely seen in public because of social pressure – few are willing to be known as “political”, a term socially equivalent to “drinking problem” or ” always in trouble with the law”.

Apr 9th, 2007
Donna

Feral

I agree with you that during the 20 or so years the Nationals were running the place, a lot of ‘bush’ issues appeared to be prioritised for *some*. I was living overseas when Labor initially were voted in.

As a young adult first entering the workforce during the reign of the Nationals, I was teaching in Central Queensland. I can recall allegations made by disenfranchised bushies that a sealed road was installed for a private property close by that was paid for by the Mains Road Department. Whether it was true or not I’m not sure.

Then there were allegations of successful tenderers for Government projects being linked to the then National Party.

I can also recall some property owners I knew at the time complaining of other property owners rorting subsidies.

But I also saw a lot of disadvantage out there. It was the first time I encountered illiterate adults and a complete lack of value of education and the opportunities it created. There were not great opportunities for women without an education, and whose families could not afford to send them away.

I can also remember how young the women got married out there. There was just little ambition for many female townfolk beyond marriage and family.

Graham

I think the poor understanding of political processes is due to an apathy of most people because their lives are quite secure. It’s only when some implementation of a policy occurs that impacts on peoples lives negatively, that an individual will want to know the who’s, why’s and when’s of what has happened to them.

Apr 11th, 2007
The Feral Abacus

Graham Bell – one possible cause of higher levels of alienation among Qld voters might be that the quality of their representatives is lower than in other states.

However, I’m not sure that is the case. While the quality of sitting members at the state level isn’t overly impressive (Beattie – whatever his failings – being the notable exception), its arguably little or no worse than in several other states. Standards of debate in the House may well be another story…

But even if Qld politicians were greatly inferior to their interstate counterparts, one would have to ask why. Perhaps the social pressure that you mention at the end of #78 is part of the equation; there’s no doubt that the pressure to conform is unusually pervasiveness.

BTW I wasn’t thinking so much about impartial and efficient technical support – one would hope that state govt agencies would provide this – but more the level of govt agencies doing everyday tasks for farmers/business people/etc gratis.

Donna – Qld was notorious for the crudity and brazenness of its corruption during the Bjelke-Peterson years (and earlier), so I’m not surprised to read your comments in #79. And yes, the historical disadvantage of sections of Qld rural society was marked. But is that still the case? Besides, much of the alienation that we’ve been talking about here can be seen in suburban Brisbane.

I think you are correct in saying that security & apathy can result in a politically uninformed electorate. But I also think there is another cause, and that is when disadvantaged people are made to feel powerless. In that circumstance, most people stop trying. To them, knowledge of the political system is useless and meaningless, so they have no incentive to find out. My guess is that both causes can be seen in different parts of Australian society.

Apr 12th, 2007
Donna

Feral

It’s an interesting comment you make on the quality of representatives in Qld. I think Ronan Lee is a fairly clued up individual, and approachable, as is Michael Reeve, State Member for Mansfield?

I’m not sure about the others. I do think that there’s an overwhelming pressure for these ministers to conform to rigid ‘group think’, as you’ve already mentioned.

I also think that some of the representatives up north and the endorsed candidates for the next federal election are quite interesting characters to say the least.

Getting on to your comments on disadvantaged people within Brisbane. For some reason I didn’t quite see how well represented they were until I moved to the suburb I am in now. There are a lot of homeless people where I live.

The local Labor branch held a public meeting addressing the homeless problems in the electorate. The demography of homelessness is changing significantly and well-represented by women and children with no place to go after a marriage breakdown. So I see both men and women, and sometimes children, looking down on their luck. The community I live within is quite organised in supporting these people to a certain degree.

As for country folk, I hear that although mining towns are booming, this boom is creating a lot of disadvantage for those within the towns that are not employed by the mines.

But I think with marginalised populations living within cities, I suppose there are always facilities, although seriously stressed facilities, such as hospitals and St Vinnies.

Apr 12th, 2007
The Feral Abacus

Donna – I was making a general statement, and you’ve come up with some first rate exceptions!

Michael Reeve I know nothing about, but Ronan Lee was my local member. For those who don’t know Qld politics, Lee represents perhaps the youngest electorate in Australia, covering Taringa, Toowong & Indooroopilly.

Lee does some interesting things. He has an email newsletter that circulates several times a year to subscribers, and is less overtly party-political than many MPs newsletters. It also includes quite a lot of community-oriented information; schools, churches, Rotary, public talks and so on.

Lee also holds Saturday morning forums, when constituents can buttonhole him on a street corner at a given time to talk about whatever happens to be on their minds. Each street within his electorate has this opportunity twice a year, I think. I never attended myself, but there were a couple of times when I drove past the poor guy being harangued by small groups of constituents…. Quite a contrast with the local Federal member – Michael Johnson – who has taken to standing on the side of highways with a big cardboard “thankyou” sign whenever he is re-elected.

When I made my statement about the quality of Qld representatives, I was thinking about the cabinet. There’s Beattie of course, and Anna Bligh is very capable. Steven Robertson seems able, but the rest look pretty thin. And I don’t think the Opposition has anything better on offer.

Apr 14th, 2007
Donna

Feral

Ronan use to be my representative at one stage of my life as well.

The last time I saw him, was immediately after a ferocious storm had just hit the western suburbs and these trees had fallen down.

Just past the Eldorado Cinema, before you go over the bridge to Graceville, on the right there is a windy, narrow, road that leads you along the river.

Trees had fallen down onto one side of the road, and Ronan was there directing traffic around the trees. The cops hadn’t even arrived yet, and here was Ronan like superman rescuing the day.

I think we should get him a cape.

Apr 14th, 2007

Club Troppo » Missing Link - Mar 26th, 2007
Tolerating intolerable nonsense -- Senator Andrew Bartlett « Neil Whitfield’s English and ESL - Mar 27th, 2007

Mini Posts

Radio chat on the election

Every Monday morning during my radio show on community radio 4ZzZ FM, I chat with Peter Black, a constitutional lawyer, follower of social and political issues and obsessive user of social media. I don’t normally put links to those chats on this blog, but given that our talk this morning was all about the federal election, I thought it was worth putting a link to it on this occasion. You can have a listen to it by clicking on this link.

(0)

Pre-election 'Debate' Farce

Given I am now running as a Greens candidate, I suppose it is no surprise that I am indicating my agreement with a comment that Bob Brown made today. But I would also say that it isn’t any secret that I haven’t agreed with every public comment that Bob has made, and I would agree with the following comment about the schoolyard level nonsense regarding another possible leaders debate even if it had been made by Steve Fielding:

“What we’re seeing now between the two leaders is an absolute farce and people everywhere are rolling their eyes at Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard not having the maturity to get together to agree to the series of debates which would have enlightened the electorate,“

It is a joke and a sad reflection on the optic and image driven nature of political media coverage in Australia. A couple of weeks ago, there was a three way debate at the National Press Club on important ICT issues such as internet filtering, broadband and wider communications policy.

More... (6)

Mountains of Coal

A couple of years ago I wrote a blog post about mountaintop mining in the USA. All mining has some impact, but the sheer destructiveness of this type of mining is astonishing – and that’s before you take into account the greenhouse impact of the coal. This article in the New York Times details the potential impact of a similar project in West Virginia. The significance of this proposal is that there is the possibility it may be stopped, or seriously curtailed, by the Obama administration, which would be a signal of a positive shift on this issue.

(2)

Recent Interviews

Following are links to a couple of recent radio interviews I’ve done, plus an online one

More... (1)

Piece on The Drum about challenges ahead for the Greens

As I noted in my previous post, this week’s Newspoll saw the Greens register 16% support – the highest that party has ever achieved, comparable to the Democrats best Newspoll result of 17% back in 1990. History suggests it is unlikely that this peak will be maintained right through to election day (or even the next Newspoll) but it is part of a continuing trend of solid Greens results. I’ve written a piece expanding on this, and how the party might approach the challenges ahead, at The Drum/Unleashed on the ABC’s site – which you can read by clicking on this link.

(0)

Wild Rivers

Contention over Queensland’s Wild Rivers legislation has been bubbling along for quite a while now. Unfortunately, as with many issues which become polarised, each “side” is focused on defending their position, which has meant that some important underlying issues are not getting the attention they deserve. I’ve just had a piece on this topic published at The Drum on the ABC’s website. It’s fairly long, so they published it in two parts – the first part is at this link and the second part is at this one. I should emphasise that the article reflects my personal views, and is not a formal view of the Greens, nor of ANTaR Queensland, who I am also involved with.

(18)

Listen in to Choose Mics

Hip hop fans in Brisbane might be interested in tuning in to my radio show on 4ZZZ FM this Monday morning around 7:30am. I’ll be talking with the Gold Coast based duo Choose Mics, who are launching their debut full length album Beggars Can’t Be Choosers at the Step Inn in the Valley this coming Friday night as part of what will be a big night for fans of hip-hop/rap/urban sounds, with Brisbane’s The Optimen also launching their second album “The Out of Money Experience” as part of the same event. Even though there is a steady stream of musical offerings in Brisbane, a double album launch of this magnitude doesn’t come along every day of the week, so I’ll dedicate a half hour or so to exploring not just the words and sounds of Choose Mics, but getting a broader overview from them of the hip hop related scenes locally and nationally.

More... (2)