Tuesday 13 December 2005
Interpreting violence...
There was a very ugly 'race riot' at Cronulla on Sunday, followed by two evenings of sporadic retaliation in a number of other suburbs around Sydney and we're promised more of the same tonight. The blogs, papers and (actually this is only a guess because I haven't bothered to turn on commercial radio) talk back radio are full of discussions about what it means. Both the right and the extreme left seem to have come to similar conclusions; it's the inevitable result of a conservative ideology. Of course they're not blaming the same conservative ideology, the right blames 'certain strains' of Islam while the radical left blame the inherent racism of 'white culture'. Read beyond the links I've provided and you'll find plenty of other opinions about what's behind it all.
It's inevitable that such incidents will be used as evidence of the truth of this or that position, just as it is inevitable that attempts to contain such incidents within narrow political outlooks will fail. Not that there isn't some truth in both positions mentioned above along with many of the others circulating.
To start with the weaker position; that 'certain strains' of Islam are the problem, I would suggest that the violent youth sub culture that motivates the 'Middle Eastern' youth involved in the recent violence has little to do with any strain of Islam. They are primarily interested in night-clubs, cars, women and drugs (cannabis and amphetamines). Their Islam - which does not seem to extend beyond wearing silver swords around their necks - is purely a token of membership. A neat way of distinguishing themselves from other groups that share similar interests. The violence associated with this particular group has many causes, journalist Nadia Jamal explores some of these in an opinion piece in the SMH. I would argue that while Jihadist strains of Islam are somewhere in the mix they are far from the most important.
It is true that certain 'racist' (or culturally chauvinistic) elements of Australian society have played a significant part in the recent violence, but to label Australian culture as 'white' and 'inherently racist' is to indulge in exactly the same kind of generalisations that racists do. And it is counterproductive if your goal is to fix these problems. By framing Australian culture in that way you prevent people from trying to find a place within it. But if your aim was to further isolate certain sections of the community - to radicalise them perhaps - you'd be on the right track.
The violence was really the next stage in an ongoing clash between two Sydney 'tribes' vying for the same limited beach space. It was fuelled by a media too interested in making money - racial tension sells papers and considered analysis does not - and some very ugly, racist political opportunists.
The risk is that it will grow into a full blown 'race' war. Just because I don't think any form of Islam is a significant motivator on the 'middle eastern' side of this thing, doesn't mean that Jihadist ideologues aren't loitering on the periphery of mainstream Islam waiting for alienated and misguided youth to show an interest. And the various 'white supremacist' groups have all ready demonstrated an ability to manipulate a problem to their advantage.
Despite all this I am not that pessimistic about the future. I think that if police can interrupt the thugs on both sides, the media can expose the tactics of the racist political opportunists and the broader community can make its condemnation of violent behaviour plain, then there is no chance of a 'race war'. Even without these things I still doubt it will come; I've lived in Sydney's south west all my life and have seen too many positive instances of cultural diversity to think it will all collapse anytime soon.
It's inevitable that such incidents will be used as evidence of the truth of this or that position, just as it is inevitable that attempts to contain such incidents within narrow political outlooks will fail. Not that there isn't some truth in both positions mentioned above along with many of the others circulating.
To start with the weaker position; that 'certain strains' of Islam are the problem, I would suggest that the violent youth sub culture that motivates the 'Middle Eastern' youth involved in the recent violence has little to do with any strain of Islam. They are primarily interested in night-clubs, cars, women and drugs (cannabis and amphetamines). Their Islam - which does not seem to extend beyond wearing silver swords around their necks - is purely a token of membership. A neat way of distinguishing themselves from other groups that share similar interests. The violence associated with this particular group has many causes, journalist Nadia Jamal explores some of these in an opinion piece in the SMH. I would argue that while Jihadist strains of Islam are somewhere in the mix they are far from the most important.
It is true that certain 'racist' (or culturally chauvinistic) elements of Australian society have played a significant part in the recent violence, but to label Australian culture as 'white' and 'inherently racist' is to indulge in exactly the same kind of generalisations that racists do. And it is counterproductive if your goal is to fix these problems. By framing Australian culture in that way you prevent people from trying to find a place within it. But if your aim was to further isolate certain sections of the community - to radicalise them perhaps - you'd be on the right track.
The violence was really the next stage in an ongoing clash between two Sydney 'tribes' vying for the same limited beach space. It was fuelled by a media too interested in making money - racial tension sells papers and considered analysis does not - and some very ugly, racist political opportunists.
The risk is that it will grow into a full blown 'race' war. Just because I don't think any form of Islam is a significant motivator on the 'middle eastern' side of this thing, doesn't mean that Jihadist ideologues aren't loitering on the periphery of mainstream Islam waiting for alienated and misguided youth to show an interest. And the various 'white supremacist' groups have all ready demonstrated an ability to manipulate a problem to their advantage.
Despite all this I am not that pessimistic about the future. I think that if police can interrupt the thugs on both sides, the media can expose the tactics of the racist political opportunists and the broader community can make its condemnation of violent behaviour plain, then there is no chance of a 'race war'. Even without these things I still doubt it will come; I've lived in Sydney's south west all my life and have seen too many positive instances of cultural diversity to think it will all collapse anytime soon.
Comments:
<< Home
I feel like you are completely determined to misread me John. I feel like I've bent over backwards to point out the extent to which what has happened was not simply the result of racism.
What we've seen rather is racism, racism in action, racism being produced. All racism is based on something else to some extent. But when you see a bunch of innocent people attacked for nothing other than what they look like, you can at least go as far as Morris Iemma and call it racism, and not pussy-foot around in à la John Howard, which is effectively your tack.
What we've seen rather is racism, racism in action, racism being produced. All racism is based on something else to some extent. But when you see a bunch of innocent people attacked for nothing other than what they look like, you can at least go as far as Morris Iemma and call it racism, and not pussy-foot around in à la John Howard, which is effectively your tack.
Mark,
Though your analysis of the Cronulla riot does contain some depth, your pieces relating to this topic are littered with references to individuals and incidents that you go on to claim are emblematic of Australian culture. As I pointed out in my piece, this is exactly the mistake that racists make. This erroneous logic (even though I haven't had the education that you have, I know how to mind my Ps and Qs) enables fascists and Jihadists to recruit members. It enables 'talk back' radio hosts to generate moral panics. It also enables extreme left wing groups to radicalise people.
In relation to my pussy-footing around, I described the Cronulla incident as a 'race riot' in my opening paragraph and went on to acknowledged the relevance of racist elements in Australian society and the opportunism of political racists within my analysis. If what you wanted was a declaration that Australian society is inherently racist, I'm sorry but that has not been my observation.
Though your analysis of the Cronulla riot does contain some depth, your pieces relating to this topic are littered with references to individuals and incidents that you go on to claim are emblematic of Australian culture. As I pointed out in my piece, this is exactly the mistake that racists make. This erroneous logic (even though I haven't had the education that you have, I know how to mind my Ps and Qs) enables fascists and Jihadists to recruit members. It enables 'talk back' radio hosts to generate moral panics. It also enables extreme left wing groups to radicalise people.
In relation to my pussy-footing around, I described the Cronulla incident as a 'race riot' in my opening paragraph and went on to acknowledged the relevance of racist elements in Australian society and the opportunism of political racists within my analysis. If what you wanted was a declaration that Australian society is inherently racist, I'm sorry but that has not been my observation.
I refuse to succumb to the blackmail that says that saying something, while true, provides fodder for bad people.
Mark,
I agree with your refusal to be silent on things that are true. But my point was that you were saying something that was not true. I also pointed out that your error was the same one that racists make.
I agree with your refusal to be silent on things that are true. But my point was that you were saying something that was not true. I also pointed out that your error was the same one that racists make.
Hey John, (and Mark) ...
Just to add to this discussion...
I was baffled to read in the Australian (mon 12/12/2005) the second paragraph (and sentence) of the headlining article, which reads: 'A man was stabbed near Cronulla and more than 100 cars in the eastern suburb of Maroubra had their windscreens smashed and tyres slashed in what police fear are signs of retaliation by members of Sydney's Muslim community'
So someone is suggesting (whether it is the journalist mis-representing the police, or the police itself) that the Lebanese side of the tiff is now represented by the Muslim community.
I think about the thousands of people who would have read this article (or even just the first few sentences only as many people do) and who would now tacitly associate these young 'agro' ethnic Australians (as I am) with the word 'Muslim', and all the fears that we have been conditioned to associate with that word.
Are the origins of this incident (life savers being assaulted) related in any way to fundamentalist religious thought? As John states, there has been no evidence presented that these assaults were religiously motivated.
Is the response to this incident (the drunk patriots assaulting people of "Middle Eastern appearance") in any way related to fundamentalist religious thought? Perhaps. Perhaps an irrational fear of it... and an erroneous association to this incident.
It seems that whether it is the extreme left, or the extreme right, or the media... all parties are fuelled by some strange kind of desire for sensationalism. In the case of the media, sensationalism sells stories. In the case of public opinion, people seem to adhere to sensationalism in an attempt to defend their position strongly. The fact that they feel the need to defend their position strongly means they feel threatened. Both sides feel threatened. That, I believe, is the result of divisive politics.
Just to add to this discussion...
I was baffled to read in the Australian (mon 12/12/2005) the second paragraph (and sentence) of the headlining article, which reads: 'A man was stabbed near Cronulla and more than 100 cars in the eastern suburb of Maroubra had their windscreens smashed and tyres slashed in what police fear are signs of retaliation by members of Sydney's Muslim community'
So someone is suggesting (whether it is the journalist mis-representing the police, or the police itself) that the Lebanese side of the tiff is now represented by the Muslim community.
I think about the thousands of people who would have read this article (or even just the first few sentences only as many people do) and who would now tacitly associate these young 'agro' ethnic Australians (as I am) with the word 'Muslim', and all the fears that we have been conditioned to associate with that word.
Are the origins of this incident (life savers being assaulted) related in any way to fundamentalist religious thought? As John states, there has been no evidence presented that these assaults were religiously motivated.
Is the response to this incident (the drunk patriots assaulting people of "Middle Eastern appearance") in any way related to fundamentalist religious thought? Perhaps. Perhaps an irrational fear of it... and an erroneous association to this incident.
It seems that whether it is the extreme left, or the extreme right, or the media... all parties are fuelled by some strange kind of desire for sensationalism. In the case of the media, sensationalism sells stories. In the case of public opinion, people seem to adhere to sensationalism in an attempt to defend their position strongly. The fact that they feel the need to defend their position strongly means they feel threatened. Both sides feel threatened. That, I believe, is the result of divisive politics.
# posted by 
: 14/12/05
: 14/12/05
BTW ... I wasn't suggesting that I am an agro 'ethnic' Australian ... just that I am an ethnic Australian.
# posted by : 14/12/05
: 14/12/05
well, this is where you get with politically correct vocabulary which elides the reality of racism. The people we are talking about here arethe LEbs, who are not necessarily of Lebanese extraction, and certainly don't include most people of Lebanese extraction in Sydney: we're talking about a discrete, cohesive subculture of young people, mostly of Lebanese Muslim extraction, but not necessarily (some are Christian, other are non-Lebanese Arabs, etc.). But you can't talk about that, you have to talk about them as being representative of a group that they are not.
Mark,
I have to confess that I don't know exactly what you mean here. Are you saying that 'politically correct' language prevents us from specifically identifying a subculture, thereby forcing us to identify the actions of individuals or smaller groups with the whole cultural group to which they belong? If so I would disagree. Whatever its failings, 'politically correct' language - or the notions behind it - would have us identify the actions of individuals or small groups as exactly what they are: the actions of individuals or small groups.
Post a Comment
I have to confess that I don't know exactly what you mean here. Are you saying that 'politically correct' language prevents us from specifically identifying a subculture, thereby forcing us to identify the actions of individuals or smaller groups with the whole cultural group to which they belong? If so I would disagree. Whatever its failings, 'politically correct' language - or the notions behind it - would have us identify the actions of individuals or small groups as exactly what they are: the actions of individuals or small groups.
<< Home
