BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Is Australia racist?

 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
10:14 / 05.02.08
Sorry, my above post was drected to West Baltimore. Took so long to write that I was no longer the next poster.

Thanks for your interest guys.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
10:24 / 05.02.08
Nuke - I undestand what you are saying but find it really annoying that what I have written has (again) been interpreted as "excuse".

"Do you feel that indiscriminate vigilante action on anyone "looking Lebanese" (which included a Jewish man and a Greek woman) would in some way deter future criminal acts?"

Could you please how you came to this interpretation? That is your idea, not mine.

Tsuga - Again when you quote me "There is a problem with Lebanese crime in Sydney" and then say "I think you should qualify your statements and explain them more fully to not appear either simplistic or racist" Well why should I? Again, the statistics seem to indicate that there IS a problem with Lebanese Crime in Sydney. You may wish to interperet such a statement as simplistic or racist, but that judgement isn't based in fact, you just chose to interperet it that way!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:18 / 05.02.08
I suggest you actually read the thread, peter75. You keep demanding that we all support a claim that, largely, we did not make or support, that Australia was "notoriously racist". Once you get over that, we may be able to talk in a rational fashion about the topic.
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:22 / 05.02.08
Could you please how you came to this interpretation? That is your idea, not mine.

True, I am interpreting what you have written. Now perhaps I have mis-interpretted it however you appear to be suggesting that the Caucasian side of the violence had some justification (even if you didn't agree with it) whereas there was no justification for the Lebanese side of the violence.

Now I personally don't think that indiscriminate mob violence can really be justified, and you seem to agree. So why did you feel the need to stand up for the Caucasian rioters and not the Lebanese rioters? You may not feel that is what you were doing but, I'm sorry, when you decided to put into context why one group of rioters where fighting whilst putting the other groups violence down to statistics then you can forgive me I hope for seeing it that way.

Why do you think that Lebanese youths were causing trouble (I refer to the spitting and name-calling here)?

But can I just digress for a moment Peter75? Do you realise that Haus hasn't actually called Australia "notoriously racist"? This thread is about two years old and in the intervening time on Barbelith I certainly can't remember anyone mentioning it so I'm not sure what's got your back up about it now.

If it makes you feel any better I don't think that Australia is automatically being painted as "notoriously racist" by all and sundry. But, like other countries (of which the UK is one) racism is a serious issue there which needs to be addressed. Just as it does here.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
11:47 / 05.02.08
I have repeatedly said that there is no justification. How many time would you like me to say it? Can you justify your comment that I appear to be the "stand[ing] up for the Caucasian rioters". That is a lot of rot. Why do you keep trotting this out. I reported fact, I have left interpretations up to you. Interperet the facts as you will but the facts remain. I don't recall any passage where I have upheld anyone's bahavoiur as being more acceptable than the other group and I invite you to prove otherwise.

I only included what I could prove as fact. A riot and Lebanese crime.I was kind of hoping that my last post would serve as a clarification of this. Your objection seems to lie with the fact I have used a statistic in support of my argument.

I understand that neither of you have specifically said "Australia is a notoriously racist country" but you didn't attack the assertion with the same vigour you now attack my position. Yet that assertion was made with no recourse to fact, whereas my argument is. So I wonder why so much effort is expended in an attempt to put words in my mouth?

I suspect that the "reason" that there is a Lebanese "problem" is extremely complex. So complex that the NSW Police Force has put a task force together to takle the issue. Complex enough that I am not going to speculate but I suspect it is the interaction of a lot of similarly complex issues. The reason for the riot was fairly simple, it just makes it more easy to explain. That doesn't make it more justifiable, it just makes it more easily supported by fact. I completely reject the fact that I have made a jusgement on the right or wrong. In fact I resent that very assertion. Again, your objection seems to centre around a statement of fact supported by some uncontroversial statistics. Spend half the energy expended on putting words into my mouth, or thinking up new and barely supportable interpretations, trying to see what I am saying. In light of now numerous clarifications I think you'll see that I'm not being at all unreasonable.
 
 
Evil Scientist
12:50 / 05.02.08
I understand that neither of you have specifically said "Australia is a notoriously racist country" but you didn't attack the assertion with the same vigour you now attack my position.

But why should I? This is an ancient thread that you've resurrected for the express point of...what precisely? Haus actually did deal with that assertion when the thread was active back in 2006. I said in my last post:

If it makes you feel any better I don't think that Australia is automatically being painted as "notoriously racist" by all and sundry.

What more did you want me to do? Have a pop at people for stuff they wrote in 2006 which was discussed and addressed at the time? I know I'm on here a lot at the moment, but I'm not sure I have the time to hunt down each and every time someone's made an unreasonable statement in the last two years. I do (occasionally) work y'know.

Can you justify your comment that I appear to be the "stand[ing] up for the Caucasian rioters".

Yes I can. You were trying to put the events in Cronulla into context as you seem to feel someone out there feels Australia is "notoriously racist" due to this one incident and wanted to redress the balance by expaining why the Caucasian participants in the riots were involved. You explained at length the various crimes committed by Lebanese youths prior to the riot breaking out as though these sprang fully-formed out of nowhere citing the statistics that there are high crime rates amongst the Lebanese population in Sydney yet not feeling obliged to try and provide a balanced view as to why those crime rates exist. Just that they do.

You're trying to explain why the riots weren't an indicator that Australia, as a society, is "notoriously racist". Which is all well and good. However you're trying to do this by explaining that, whilst the violence was entirely unacceptable that the reason for a lot of the violence coming from the Caucasian side (infiltrated let us not forget by three separate hate groups) was due to what some Lebanese youths had done previously.

Not necessary the unlucky Lebanese (or vaguely foriegn) sods in the path of the riot though. I think we both agree that coming from an ethnic group with a high incidence of crime is no excuse for people to beat someone up. And that beating someone up for something that someone else from their racial group did is a teensy bit racist.

This was a racist situation. It came about due to racism (on both sides of the riot). So can you see why using it to indicate in this two-year old thread why Australia isn't "notoriously racist" might not be such a nifty move? Why have you not also given us the statistics for crime amongst the white population in Sydney? They're not non-existent are they? So why use Lebanese crime statistics on their own when there were at least two racial groups involved?

The reason for the riot was fairly simple, it just makes it more easy to explain.

So the reason for the riot is simple and yet the reason for crime amongst the Lebanese population in Sydney is complex. Hmm.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:35 / 05.02.08
See also, describing the Cronulla riots:

But what happened that day stemmed from genuine frustration.

That's not a fact, or a piece of reportage. It's editorialising about the terrible, terrible frustration that led these poor Anglo-Celtic Australians to riot and beat up any foreign-looking types they can find. It's psychoanalysis.

There's no justication for the violence. But you have to understand the white guys' frustration.

And:

Just as there is no justification for a group of young Caucasian men starting racist chants at Cronulla that ugly day and behaving in a violent way. I was ashamed and extremely angry as 99.9% of Australians were. That is not my country! But one does have to ask. Why weren't the Cronulla riots focused on Chinese, or Africans or Brazilians?

There's no justification for the rioting. But the Lebs brought it on themselves.


You don't make up these justfications for the Lebanese (and, incidentally, I'd like court reporting on these factual cases you cite - there was a lot of hearsay and exaggeration flying around at the time). They are just criminal, and so frustrating to the law-abiding white folks that when one of those random incidents of racially motivated rioting kicked off, it stood to reason that they were the subjects.

Not a fair go, in, I imagine, the eyes of most reasonable observers.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
19:35 / 05.02.08
We're going around in circles. If you continue to take snippets of comment without putting it in the context of the entire post there is no point in "discussing" the issue.

Take care.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:55 / 05.02.08
Well, you specifically said:

I don't recall any passage where I have upheld anyone's bahavoiur as being more acceptable than the other group and I invite you to prove otherwise.

I thought this invitation was sincere, but I do have some learning comprehension issues, so I might have missed a device.

Anyway, sorry you couldn't handle this one, Peter75. I'm sure that what you have said so far will be taken on its merits by others reading this topic.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
20:10 / 05.02.08
The invitation was sincere. But while we are on editorialising I was wondering where in my post I can be quoted as saying "the Lebs brought it on themselves"? It would seem that you are he one editorialising my comments to fit your incorrect interpretation. If you can find a direct quote that justifies anyone's behavior then by all means do so. As yet you haven't managed to do so.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:40 / 05.02.08
But while we are on editorialising I was wondering where in my post I can be quoted as saying "the Lebs brought it on themselves"?

Sure thing! It's here:

But one does have to ask. Why weren't the Cronulla riots focused on Chinese, or Africans or Brazilians? Did his just happen spontaneously? If so why had they never happened before and why haven't they happened since?

There's also:

The point is that I don't condone violence, and I don't condone racism, but rarely do these things just "happen" in isolation.

Hope this helps. If you mean did you type that phrase, you certainly didn't - which is why it is not in quotation marks. Had I attempted to represent you as having said it, rather than having made statements to that effect, I should certainly have been uttering a falsehood.

There's another question about whether the Cronulla riots did in fact focus on the Lebanese - as Evil Scientist says above, they might have started with that laudable aim but appear to have evolved fairly quickly into a free-for-all where any non-white person could expect to be targeted. Equal-opportunities racism, if you like.


(Oh, Evil Scientist - quick correction. The text messages were inviting people to do violence against Lebanese and Greek/Balkan/Mediterranean people - the term beginning with "w" that you have in mind has a different meaning in the Land Down Under.)
 
 
Evil Scientist
20:43 / 05.02.08
Ahh, I suppose that does narrow down the groups targetted a bit doesn't it. Cheers Haus.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
21:08 / 05.02.08
As I have said many times before you are quoting me out of context. Clearly you are either not intelligent enough to understand my argument in its entirity or, in the best tradition of tabloid journalism, you are scouring for quotes, then quoting them out of context, to illustrate a pre-conceived point. Either way it is quite tiresome, nor is it particularly sophisticated. I also note with interest that you take no issue with the many, many other points I have made outside the specific issue of the Cronulla Riot. Why is this? I think anyone who reads my posts with an open mind and a modicum of critical thought will understand the thrust of my argument. You keep saying I make some sort of justification, but as yet you are unable to point out that justification without taking one sentence out of all context.

Its very easy to take the line of least resistance, more difficult to consider the issue in a reasoned and dispassionate way. You could make an excellent application to the Thought Police.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
21:18 / 05.02.08
An interesting excercise might also be to replace the sentences you quote to their orrect context.

"But people outside of Australia could be forgiven for believing that this WAS a spontaneous event as the riot was never really put into any context. Nor was there much in the way of reports on the many "revenge attacks" that continued for weeks after. Maybe because they occured at night, not in broad daylight.... I don't know. The point is that I don't condone violence, and I don't condone racism, but rarely do these things just "happen" in isolation. I am just reporting the facts and hoping that they speak for themselves. I haven't told any lies so why am I somehow supporting the riot by reporting the events in the lead up. It would be akin to saying that I supported World War 1 because I reported the assasination of Franz Ferdinand."

Changes the meaning of the sentence somewhat when put back into its original context doesn't it? As it seems you like to latch on to a particular sentence in support of your specious assertions I'll point out a sentence wihtin that passage for you. "...why am I somehow supporting the riot by reporting the events in the lead up?"

I ask again, why am I condoning racism by reporting fact? Why don't we all go about burning books that include facts we don't like. There is a precedent for that you know......
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:37 / 05.02.08
Ah, the Thought Police. Would that be the Politically Correct Thought Police, by any chance?

There's not a lot in your statements to consider, to be honest. You deny that Australia is "notoriously racist" (fair enough, that choice of words was discussed at length in this thread). You claim that the Cronulla riots were certainly bad, but a) the Lebanese minority had behaved egregiously and b) if anything, crowds of people chasing and attacking people because of the colour of their skin show that Australia is not racist (whatevs). You are just reporting facts (not true). You feel Australia should have a single culture (oh, right?) based on being easygoing and good at sport (oh-kay). You believe that "a fair go" is a viable basis for a culture, but do not wish to give a fair go to both sides of the story in the Cronulla case (thus rather botching the principle from the start).

What's interesting from my point of view here is the pattern of assumptions in the claims you are making, and what they tell me about the way you interface with the culture you claim to represent. However, as people are finding in your other threads, you're not much of a one for following an argument, so the learnings you might get from this process are likely to be quite limited.

The reason, I think, people are focussing on Cronnula is that most of the rest of what you are saying is vague and flannely (a "fair go"), whereas the Cronnula stuff provides a pretty clear demonstration of how the default "Australian" culture you are positing functions.


Gentle readers: there's quite an interesting programme transcript of an episode of Four Corners (Australian current affairs programme) here, which showcases some of the confused reportage and confused attitudes around the whole mess. Sample text:

It did shock me, in the park, when, um...them two boys got attacked. But...on the TV, it made out as if they were...poor innocent little kids. Like, they were, but they were being smart-arses, and...I know, like...like, everyone was being, like, not racist, but everyone was saying, like, "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie," making them say it. And then someone screamed out, "Oh, all you w__s go back to where you came from." And then one them turned around and said, "Oh, hey, I'm w_g, but I'm down here supporting Australia." Hey, bud, that's my flag too, mate. That's my flag too, I was born here.

MAN: That's not your fuckin' flag!

MAN: I was born here, too.

MAN: Get the fuck outta here, mate!

SARAH: And then, you know, you're around a massive bunch of drunk people who are willing a fight...

MAN: You're gonna get killed, you fuckers!

SARAH: And then basically a lot of people just smashed them.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:46 / 05.02.08
I ask again, why am I condoning racism by reporting fact? Why don't we all go about burning books that include facts we don't like. There is a precedent for that you know......

Godwin.

OK, chaps - anyone reading this, do you think that putting the words back in their original context changes the meaning at all? At all at all? Especially since the claim simply to be reporting fact is clearly not true? Some of it simply being untruths - the Bilal Skaf case involved 14 suspects and 9 convictions from several different incidents, not groups of up to fifty Lebanese men at a time - and some of it being editorial, such as The point is that I don't condone violence, and I don't condone racism, but rarely do these things just "happen" in isolation..

So, anyone? Do you feel that the addition of the words in between changes the meaning at all?
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
21:50 / 05.02.08
"if anything, crowds of people chasing and attacking people because of the colour of their skin show that Australia is not racist (whatevs)"

Yet another unsupported statement.

As for a quote from an individual, well what is the point of that little gem?

Anyway, to be honest, I've had quite enough of your interpretations, mis-quotations, and inferences unsupported by fact. And I'm supposed to bow to your supposedly superior intellect, when in fact you haven't supplied any new evidence to support your argument, you just run with interpretations of my argument without recourse to the the context of my entire posts.
 
 
pony
21:55 / 05.02.08
I really don't want to get involved in any "haus vs. the high-spirited but comprehensionally-deficient newcomer" shenanigans (especially after the book burning bit*), but I've got to agree that the "but one does have to ask" is really just sitting there like a piece of shit on the carpet that peter75 won't acknowledge.


*and also because I've been in that spot, and don't envy peter75's initiatory hissy-fit...
 
 
*
21:56 / 05.02.08
Sorry, peter. But the definition of "fact" (look it up) clearly excludes most of what you've been holding up as "fact." No one here is advocating bookburning, and in fact no one in the past year had been saying that Australia is a racist country, until you provided such a clear demonstration of why so many people might think that. Your efforts at leading this argument make me sorry for you, and your accusation of Haus that he is not intelligent enough to understand it made me laugh out loud in a public library. I am forced to conclude that you are either a troll/joke suit, or you have not been taught enough logic to follow your own arguments, let alone those of other people.
 
 
*
22:01 / 05.02.08
Mainly, peter, I'm concerned, not by your assertions (because "Australia is not a racist country" is just as meaningless an assertion as "Australia is a racist country") but by your motivations for resurrecting this old thread. Haus will not let a weak argument stand, especially not when its foundation, such as it is, is clearly a lot of unexamined racism, so I think I understand his motivations in engaging with you. What I don't understand is why you keep at it when before you started, no one was attacking the country you hold so dear. It irritates me to be asked to involve myself in your masochistic desire to make yourself a target. I strive to only involve myself with other people's masochism in ways that are mutually pleasurable and clearly negotiated.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
22:28 / 05.02.08
I do find it pleasurable and will state for the record that I don't hold it against anyone for holding an alternate viewpoint. We can have a robust conversation where people get a bit shitty, but that shouldn't erode the basic respect of the participants unless they are themselves disrepectful. I haven't encountered that yet and would hope that I in turn have not been seen to be disrespectful. But I have felt at times that I have been quoted out of context in a post that included many other uncontested points, my posts actually wan't ABOUT the Cronulla Riots.

Lets change the parameters slightly but reforming the question a little "In light of the Cronulla Riots, is Australia a Racist Nation?"

The reason for my masochism is purely in the debate! I read a post (yes an old one) and thought it was interesting but there seemed to be a lack of an opposing viewpoint. I am just putting an opposing viewpoint forward. As I have said, ad nauseum, I don't ptopose to justify anyones actions, I just don't understand why it is being constantly being suggested that I am. By doing so seems to indicate that I am racist. I'm not, at least to the extent that anyone is not racist. For example, when in San Francisco lately my wife and I walked into a neighborhood that we didn't feel comfortable in. I asked later if we had been racist by seeking to leave as soon as possible (it was predominantly poepled by African Americans). That may have formed part of it. But there are other factors as well. The area was extremely run down which would indicate it was of a lower socio economic status, there were many poeople who appeared to be "high", there were less white poeple. Obviously if I had been black myself I would have felt more comfortable. Does that make me racist? Furthermore, would I walk through a similar area where the only difference was that the inhabitants were predominantly white. The answer is no, I avoid those areas in Sydney as well. So recognising trends in certain situations or settings isn't necisarily rasism even if race is a factor in the way we feel or decision making. How many of you (if you aren't black) would walk down the back streets of Soweto, and would that decision be based on saety or race?

What I from the start have attempted to illustrate is reasons for why certain things happen or have happened. Not make a justification for that position. As I have said before there must be reasons why young Lebanese men are over represented in crime figures but I don't know what the reasons are as they seem to be far more complex than a single reaqction to a fairly specific set of circumstances that lead to the riot. Circumstances that are easily explained. Not justified, just easily explained. I don't recall EVER making a value judgement, that has only occured via the posts of the various respondents.

Cheers.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:37 / 05.02.08
But, just to clarify, when you said:

Furthermore there were a number of high profile gang rape convictions, involving groups of up to fifty Lebanese men at a time.

That wasn't true, was it? It wasn't a fact, because it didn't happen, and as such was also not a circumstance surrounding the riots? Just to be clear about that, because I think you were referencing a series of appalling crimes that took place some years before the riots, involving much smaller numbers...

(There's another question, about whether it is worth pointing out that black people are not safe in poor, depressed, crime-heavy areas either, but that's a bit broader than the current set of circumstances)
 
 
pony
22:47 / 05.02.08
there were less white poeple. Obviously if I had been black myself I would have felt more comfortable. Does that make me racist?

I think the question of whether [x] action/belief "makes you a racist" is really a lot less productive than asking whether there are racist assumptions being made in a given action/belief.

that said, i think that the above assumption (that people should intrinsically be more comfortable around those of their own skin color) could certainly be construed as a racist assumption.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
22:53 / 05.02.08
Haus's you are indeed correct on that and I stand corrected. Bet you didn't expect that! I referenced an article that quoted Bilal Skaff stating that there "are 50 more waiting", so I do stand humbly corrected on that point. I hope you accept that. I also don't think that the exact figure changes things a great deal. You may think otherwise. I'll also, not so humbly state, that this will be the only factual error you will find in a long post that quoted a number of facts. I do, however concede that,if I am putting something forward as fact, I need to be extremely carefull lest it compromise the perceived veracity of the post as a whole, I will be more carefull in future.

But again, I don't think it changes the paradigm of the argument at all.

As for black people being unsafe in those areas, I completely think that illustrates my point. That was what I was driving at. Relating that back to my original argument I don't believe that Lebanese are more likely to commit crime because they're Lebanese. Similarly I don't believe that the riots main focus on Lebanese not because they were Lebanese, but becuase the incidents in the lead up happened to be perpetrated BY Lebanese. Does that make any sense?
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
23:01 / 05.02.08
Why is it racist to feel less comfortable as an outsider? As I said I would have felt uncomfortable regardless of the colour of the skin. I'm only pointing out that colour made me stand out.
 
 
Rev. Orr
23:15 / 05.02.08
peter75 -
When you say "but becuase the incidents in the lead up happened to be perpetrated BY Lebanese" do you accept that there is a process of selection by which someone has decided that of the limitless group of 'things that happened prior to the riots' there is a distinct sub-section which we might call 'things which are directly relevant to the riots occurring'? This conjectured other has further stated 'ooh look - all the things in this subset were done by them pesky Lebanese'*. You therefore appear to have bought into this analysis of the causation of the riots and by so doing, accepted hir assumptions as to what caused the violence. If all the reasons for the violence were the result of actions by 'the Lebanese' then it appears that they brought the violence on their own heads.

Is it any clearer why such statements can be read as justification of the white rioters' actions or a one-sided look at events?

*We'll draw a veil over issues of assumed collective guilt and/or punishment, shall we?
 
 
pony
23:17 / 05.02.08
Like I said, I think your statement could be construed as racist; there's obviously room for differing opinion here.

The reason I saw this as a possible reading is because your statement seemed to assume that either black people were innately more dangerous in general than non-blacks, or that black people were innately predisposed to animosity/danger towards you because of your skin color.

Seeing as you didn't know these people, these assumptions are going to be based on stereotypes that you hold, which could be view by some as racist.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
23:29 / 05.02.08
Palace - I accept that, which prompted the original question to my wife.

Rev - How is the recognition of a certain perception a justification for actions occuring thereafter? The perception existed, backed by crime statistics, that Lebabnese men had been involved in a disproportinately high number of violent crimes. Futhermore there had been in the months leading up to the event a number incidents occurring on Cronulla Beach, again perpetrated by young Lebanese men. How does this then constitute a justification?

No doubt the above will be countered with the argument "Yeah, well why did the Lebanese men do this?" So on one hand it is continually argued by proxy that there is some sort of justification on one hand for violent behavior, and on the other hand there isn't. I have stated over, and over and over again that there my position is that there is no justification for violence, only reasons, and these events do not exist in isolation nor do they occur spontaneously. What is so controversial about that?
 
 
Rev. Orr
00:02 / 06.02.08
Actually, that isn't the tack I'd take - I'll build my own straw men, thanks.

You say that i) crime figures in the area show a disproportionate number of violent crimes being performed by 'Lebanese' men, ii)there had been "a number" of "incidents" on the beach "perpetrated", again, by these 'Lebanese' men and iii) that this is why the rioting took place. This is justification because it states that i) and ii) caused iii). As you yourself took no part in the violence under discussion this is a hypothesis not a fact.

Were I to state that the riots occurred because of the astrological alignment of the planets on that day - many people would say that I was an idiot. They would reject my assumption that the rioters' behaviour was motivated by astrology.

You are elevating i) and ii) to a position of privilege over every other incident, factor or relevant incident that might impinge on the cause of the riots. In so doing, you are drawing conclusions that are partisan since in both i) and ii) the actions were those of these 'Lebanese' men. Since these are the two reasons for the riots and these were "perpetrated" by the 'Lebanese' you are stating that the riots were caused by the 'Lebanese'.

If, for example, a reporter had asked one of those on the 'Lebanese' not 'Australian' side as to the cause of the riots, would they have responded with "well, we're responsible for all the crime around here and we like to harrass white girls on the beach, so some of the local, real Australians beat the crap out of me"?

You are taking at face value what those who instigated the violence that day say was their motivation without questioning whether there might be more to the situation than just i) and ii). As a result you feel you are being unfairly tarred by the same brush. Does the reaction from the board make any more sense to you yet?
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
02:21 / 06.02.08
No it doesn't make more sense. Do we completely dismiss cause and effect? If so, why? Are you actually stating that several thousand people spontaneously decided to demonstrate on the same day without any thought as to the reason for doing so? Clearly enough people felt strongly enough about a certain issue to gather at Cronulla, peacefully or otherwise.

"You say that i) crime figures in the area show a disproportionate number of violent crimes being performed by 'Lebanese' men, ii)there had been "a number" of "incidents" on the beach "perpetrated", again, by these 'Lebanese' men and iii) that this is why the rioting took place.". Your speech marks in the above passage seem to indicate a reluctance on your part to use those words. Are you therefore doubting the truth of statements i) and ii). Perhaps this is really where the issues lie.

Actually I didn't ever make the case for iii) as bein justified, I just said it happened after points i) and ii). "...that this is why the rioting took place." is something you wrote.. I agree with points i) and ii), and I stand by it as these facts can be supported by evidence. But I think it is drawing a very long bow to then say iii) was justified by i) and ii). This assertion cannot be supported by evidence. I'll hot-key the following statement as I seem to have to continually repeat it - "Where have I ever justified violence in any of my posts". You may interpret it as such but that interpretation isn't supported by fact. If you defined i) and ii) as contributing factors, or the first steps on the way to to iii) Is agree. But you assert that I justify iii) with i) and ii). Admittedly it is human nature to simplify things but rarely are things so simple. In fact, if you read my original post, you will see that I worte "Racist elements took over and the rest is history."
I have never denied the existence of racist elements in Australia but my original post was to the question "Is Australia notoriously racist?".

If you were to say that the Cronulla riots were as a result of some astrological alignment you would be an idiot. This isn't supportable by fact. You could choose to interpret the meanings as such and,while not unprovable, nor are they provable. That's the thing with interpretation. Everyone has their own and that's what makes in an...... interpretation

In a similar vein you could say that World War 1 was caused by i) Franz Ferdinand's assassination ii) Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia iii) Germany invaded France. Was Germany racist because it invaded France? You maybe able to interpret events that way, but it is not supportable points i) and ii) alone. Nor is it a justification for iii). Points i) and ii) set up conditions that allowed iii) to occur. Nothing more, nothing less.

Another example. John calls Jim a name. Jim hits John. John kills Jim. The sequence of events is fairly clear. Does that mean Jim was justified in killing John? You may interpret the sequence of events that way, but that would not be supported by the facts. Justification would be an interpretation of events. All that have reported are the sequence of events. Lets say now say John was black and Jim was white. Can we say for certainty that John killed Jim through racism?

The point is that the those involved just happened to be Lebanese. That wasn't the reason. The target could just have easily been flight attendants had flight attendants been over represented in crime in the lead up. Does this mean that flight attendants are more prone to crime? Statistically yes, but there may be other factors. Such as constant exposure to altitude or a myriad of other factors outside of their profession to which they are exposed to by virtue of their profession.

To quote Haus - "The reason, I think, people are focussing on Cronnula is that most of the rest of what you are saying is vague and flannely" (interseting choice of word) "(a "fair go"), whereas the Cronnula stuff provides a pretty clear demonstration of how the default "Australian" culture you are positing functions.

Ummm, sorry? Good to see you aren't adverse to sweeping statements! Assuming this is how "Australian culture functions" as you assert, what evidence do you have other than one event on one day? Quite frankly I find the above statement quite offensive!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:17 / 06.02.08
"The default "Australian" culture you are positing is what I actually wrote", not "Australian culture" - you didn't even get the quotation right (missed the quote marks), as well as quoting selectively, which you have been whining about other people doing to you. That is, the magic Australian culture that you are claiming that everyone in Australia should follow:

I believe that Australia should be mono-cultural. I believe that we should strive for an Australian culture, a multi racial Australian culture - not a multi-cultural Australia.

This inability to follow simple written language is why, when you say:

I'll also, not so humbly state, that this will be the only factual error you will find in a long post that quoted a number of facts.

I'm afraid I don't believe you. If you are going to present as fact some sort of fevered fantasy about vast groups of more than fifty Lebanese men gathering to perform sexual assaults in the run-up to the Cronulla riots, then I am no longer able to believe that any of the facts you have presented are anything other than twisted misreadings. If we are Godwinning, then you know who else made things up about other racial groups' vile sexual acts? You got it.

This is unfortunate, but you've demonstrated a good few times in this thread that you are not able to follow arguments in text, as demonstrated in the first paragraph of this post. So, no. Frankly, unless you are able to quote chapter and verse, and provide an attestation, I'm not going to trust anything you say is not filtered through your own desire to exonerate and promote a "default Australian culture" that just happens to match your own self-perception.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:24 / 06.02.08
For example, on statements that are not true:

In the weeks leading up to the riot there had been an increasing incidence of groups of young Lebanese men attending the beach and verbally and physically abusing "Aussies" particularly young women. This culminated in an assault on a volounteer lifesaver at the beach.

Now, these look like FACTS, but actually, as far as I can tell, they are not. First up, NSW crime reports do not reference the racial origin of the alleged perpetrators. So, one could say factually that there had been an increase in crime reports of verbal and physical harassment - whether that was a statement of true fact could then be examined from police reports. I am not sure how many weeks you include in "the weeks leading up to the riot", since you were using a fictitious set of sexual attacks based on something that happened four years previously as an example of a recent flashpoint.

The statement that these culminated - that is, reached their peak - in an attack on a volunteer lifesaver again looks like a fact. However, is there a crime report? Is there an official report of any kind? As far as one can ascertain, there was a fight between a group of young men on one side and a smaller group of lifesavers on the other. However, the run-up to it, the cause of the fight... these are not clear. There's quite an interesting bit in the Four Corners Programme transcript about how the runours proliferated - the lifesavers stepped in to prevent an Australian woman being harassed, the lifesavers were attacked after saving the life of a Muslim woman by a crowd of Lebanese men outraged that she had touched her, and so on.

So, again, I think you're taking "accepted wisdom" as historical fact, without taking into account that your own filters are determining what wisdom you find acceptable.
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:45 / 06.02.08
We can have a robust conversation where people get a bit shitty, but that shouldn't erode the basic respect of the participants unless they are themselves disrepectful.

and

Why don't we all go about burning books that include facts we don't like. There is a precedent for that you know......

Posted without comment.

So, Peter75, how would your ideal of a monocultural Australia work? Would people be allowed to worship different religions for instance? Would any kind of religious worship be allowed in fact, as they all bring certain cultural restrictions and beliefs with them?

How would it be decided what constitutes the norm for Australian culture anyway? As a country it is a very good example of somewhere which was founded by mass immigration after the European invasion and it's societal structure is formed from countless different cultural groups. So whose cultural structures are used to create this monoculture? Given that Australia is desperate for skilled immigrants at the moment would people be encouraged to come knowing that they couldn't, for instance, celebrate Chinese New Year?

This doesn't even consider the rights of the native Australians (using this term to describe descendants of pre-European invasion inhabitants). They are legally allowed to follow and enforce tribal law are they not? So would they be an exception to an enforced monoculturalisation?
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
09:12 / 06.02.08
I find the above post offensive and disrespectful and in that light and terinating participation in the "discussion".What a twit. Where do you get off writing such rubbish. One has to wonder as to what sort of person you are my friend.

I hope you are proud of that post because you only belittle yourself in writing it. I think a word I used to describe "Australian culture" was tolerance, so how any of the abve would be threatened is beyond me. Anyway if we can't have a mature conversation here then I won't have the conversation.


Goodbye. Enjoy the collective masturbation of perceived victory. Intellectual bullying at its best.
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:32 / 06.02.08
Please explain why my previous post is offensive and disrespectful. Although if you feel that strongly about it why not take it to Policy?

So far I haven't insulted you.

So far you've intimated that I (and others) have the qualities of a Nazi and have called me a twit.

Well done you.
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply