Sensible comments on the over-used and abused word 'racist'. The word is hurled around by people who have no argument, or is simply used to insult people who have different ideas from that of the user.

I am refreshed after reading this article and enjoy any work that attempts to have the dominant understand their dominance.

What a contrast to this thread:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4015

Thank you for the wise words and measured tones.

The word 'racist' has certainly been overused. As have the terms 'politically correct', 'anti-American', 'unAustralian' and 'fascism'. Death by a thousand cliches.

Eva is right in that accusations of racism gets people's backs up. That's a good thing. In the not so distant past, many Australians were proud of being racist. Now the accusation is almost on a par with 'child molester'.

Nonetheless, there is racism in Australian society and it would be foolish not to recognise it. Eva cites the assignment of collective guilt as an example and I'd agree. I saw grafitti the other day saying that Jews are the new Nazis. Most people would agree that is racism (or anti-semitism if you want to be technical). However, yes it is often better to be pragmatic and suppress the urge to throw the term 'racist' around like so much confetti if you want to be more effective in combatting bigotry.

Eva asked:

[[“My question is: How do we convince public figures to take responsibility for reducing the climate of fear and assuage public anxieties without encouraging a toxic form of tribalism? ]]

I think we need to rephrase the question.

"How do we approach the problem of 'tribalism' ?

1/ Partly by educating it out of peoples minds.

BUT...under the framework of a dominant culture which cannot be challenged. Malaysia had what they called the "5 sensitive issues" established soon after race riots of 1969. The law was, you were not even allowed to DISCUSS the 'preeminence' of the Malay culture/and power. (Note..that is 'Malay' as opposed to Chinese or Indian minorities)

2/ By Sensible settlement policies which prevent Ghettos.

3/ By strict limits to 'family reunion' so that young underage or ANY girls canNOT be sent to Lebanon to marry by arrangement older men who can then come to Australia with all THEIR associated family re-union hangers on.

4/ Soccer and other sporting teams based on RACE would be illegal.(sorry South Melb Hellas and Inter-Milan)

5/ Cultural Associations must show their 'respect' credentials for the dominant culture by implementing programs which show publically how minority cultures are contributing to the social harmony through such respect.

6/ DISMANTLING all discriminatory training in the public or emergency services which require them to treat minorities in ANY way other than according to the Australian culture dominant here.

Basically, re-engineer 'MultiCulturalism' to mean 'under' the guidance and limits afforded by the dominant culture. Then, dispense with the Term altogether, replacing it with 'Successful life in Australia' or something.

Eva,

As always, a thoughtful approach to a complex issue. As I've said in response to other Op Eds on the violence in Cronulla: the speed with which some people hold a broad group responsible for the actions of a few individuals is very frightening.

The responses to Greg Barns' article in some ways demonstrate this, no one wanted to be accused of being racist and yet would happily imbue self-selected groups of "others" with identical characteristics without a second thought.

An example of this is Catholicism, considered at one point as a stance implicitly anti-nationhood. I myself know people who would consider themselves Catholic who don't go to church each week, those that do, those who won't take communion, those who support artificial contraception and those that don't, those that agree with the majority of the Pope's teachings and those that don't. For some, a stereotypical view of Catholicism might be convenient, but ignores the intricacies of individuals' faith: just as judgements about any group based on any notion of membership will always fail to encompass the full range of that group.

It's very easy to consider that group-think or collective mentality doesn't exist in dominant, mainstream Australian culture, but that's because we excel at living our lives without having it challenged too much. People with a strong sense of their own personal values should not find it confronting to have those values challenged: this is the way that we grow as individuals and develop who we are.

I was just wondering what is the accepted definition of "racist"? In another thread I have been accused of being racist after complimenting Asian migrants as hard working and valuing education - no negative connotations whatsoever although I admit a bit of a generalisation. Apparently this is as bad as racial vilification - I can't quite see it so who is right?

Bd, You sure have over heated. Shame on you expecting Eva to understand what your saying. Don't you know who she is, what she's achieved, whats she's done for this country and the advancement of our social fabric.

Her article, how well she says nothing, but blames the people who are being effected. Then goes about telling us that we should just accept her PC approach of giving up what kept us comfortable and relaxed, during the last century, until Eva and crew cried wolf. She constantly forgets, that it was the freedoms of this country that allowed her to do and say the things she does. Unlike the religious cultures she and her ilk have invited here to divide us.

The only answer to this problem is to get responsibly tough and start making everyone responsible for their actions and the outcomes of those actions. Multiculturalism doesn't work. You can see its effects around the world it causes division, just as religion does. The only result from that is, confusion, fear and finally breakdown and violence. Its a socialogical death sentence.

With the current approach of our governments and PC controlled education, law and bureaucratic systems, we are destined for a very rough ride.

Bd has provided a good start, but religion should be of the streets and just in homes and designated places of worship. It should be private thing, not divisive as it is.

What you prescribe Eva, aren't answers, just more feely good stupidities

Eva, 80% for talk talk. 0% for content. You appear to welcome the opportunity to produce waffle. Do you get points for using so many words to say nothing?
I suppose it offers an opportunity for a nice seminar, where more words can be wasted, along with the space, & tax payers money.
No wonder we dispair at the farce our universities have become, in many faculties.

Don't tell me that the word 'racist'is no longer in the lexicon of the elites. What will be used to cow the great unwashed? And my rheumy eyes can't believe what they see. An invitation to debate 'our' problems, which surely is Eva's version of charientism. Surely those who should debate 'our' problems are the entheomania-prone social engineers and their janissaries. After all, aren't they the ones who shaped society?

Just for the record, about 25 to 30 years ago members of our society expressed concern about the inimicitious nature of some migrant groups. Those expressing concern were told that 'experts' were shaping society and they knew what they were doing.

So here we are Eva, reading your epiphany and enjoying the wonderfully rich and diverse society which you and your colleagues have created.

My question to you is: "Did you and your colleagues (Prof Jerzy Zubrzycki et al) have any ideas or plans when you embarked on this lunacy? How can we sue you for loss of quality of life?"

Sage, you claim the word "racist" is used by "the elites" (whoever they are) to browbeat the rest of us. Yet in making this point you have used words that many amongst the "great unwashed" would never have heard of let alone understand. That could quite fairly be described as elitist.

In fact the term "elitist" is used in exactly the way you accuse people of using the term "racist". It is designed to simplistically pigeonhole people and lazily undermine their argument without having to present an alternative case.

Having said that, I still think the term "racism" is useful and unfortunately I still think it's very prevalent in Australian society. I agree with Eva that it upsets people and tends to shut down debate, but I wouldn't want to pander to people like Sage and remove it from our "lexicon".

Thank you for an easy-to-read and thought-provoking article, Eva.

Eva

Thank you for your article.

I like Allport's (1969) definition of prejudice better than yours: "Thinking ill of others without sufficient warrant".

Prejudice is not only confined to race, colour, creed.

People with mental illness in this country can suffer prejudice on a daily basis - as can people with developmental delay - as can people with cerebral palsy.

Cheers
Kay

Thanks Eva for an excellent article.

I am one who posted my thoughts on Greg Barns' article here :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3993#24567

One critcally important cause which has also been muddied by the propensity of detractors to falsely label its proponents as 'racist' is for our society to control its population levels. This position embraces support for effective immigration laws, which has been, in past decades, an unfashionable cause with left-liberal types (quite possibly even including yourself(?))

However, as I have written in other posts, the uncontrolled increase in numbers in Sydney, which has resulted in apalling overcrowding, is a factor which helped spark these riots.

If we are to allow people to settle here, and even to allow our numbers to continue to grow beyond what many believe to be already unsustainable, given the imminent threat of the end of cheap fossil fuel, then at least priority should be given to those who have genuine compassionate grounds on which to be allowed to settle here, and not to business migrants who are allowed to buy their way into this country, and in doing so, drive up the value of real estate for everyone else.

Thanks Eva.
I want to focus on a single assertion in your contribution whose significance I suspect you haven't yet pondered.
You wrote: "The yobbos on both sides do not represent their self-identified group origins, ...".
This is the tip of a very large iceberg - a very significant deficiency in our alleged democratic system.
Minority groups are excluded from representation in our representative institutions. Even the 4.5% quota in the NSW Legislative Council is far too high to allow almost all minority groups any chance of representation. In other words, minority groups have no voice in our political system.
Does this matter? In a democratic society it would matter very much. "The people" is comprised of individuals who identify themselves which a wide range of minority groups. If minority groups are excluded from representation, so are "the people".
If we want minority groups to exercise mutual respect - and most people would want that - shouldn't our nation show the way by demonstrating respect for all minority groups? By excluding minority groups from representation in our representative institutions, our nation demonstrates contempt for all minority groups [except for the powerful and wealthy].
This fundamental issue isn't even on our national radar screen. Why?

My question to you is: "Did you and your colleagues (Prof Jerzy Zubrzycki et al) have any ideas or plans when you embarked on this lunacy? How can we sue you for loss of quality of life?"

Posted by Sage, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 10:38:39 PM
____________________

Sage,

Agreed re Eva Cox-her thoughts processes have not changed since the Women & Health Conference (ACT) over 30+ years.

Add me re legal action -lowering of quality of life and never-ending problems that have/are costing a small fortune - people did predict this 30+ years.

Muslim with 1 wife/children and the wife's sisters (up to 4 wives allowed a Muslim man) and their children living on welfare in Oz - this can be verified. The Muslim man in Vic., Court whose "wife" & 10 (Oz born) children-welfare for 10 years-children possibly perpetuate the welfare pattern. Dad would have Legal Aid,many Australians can't despite paying Taxes etc.,

It is not only the Muslims, a Korean man (in OZ for 20years) said to me recently "The Chinese are everywhere in Sydney and take over whole suburbs inc. shops.." employed in large numbers in the Post Offices

Chinese know the best schools and move into the appropriate suburb (HK $), a prominent North Shore High School has Chinese students who charge $30 a week for protection, and also bring drugs into the school, a problem that has been perpetuated throughout the North Shore area.

"Charity begins at Home" a saying the Aboriginal people would be puzzling over given the welfare paid to escapees from foreign countries and the ensuing Social Workers, Police, Hospital, Remedial Education Facitilies oh, it just goes on and on!!

Sage, include the Politicians in your post - they approve the legislation - and never has the Australian population "Approved" this "Multiculturalism".

A rich & diverse society arising from "Multiculturalism" quite the opposite, maybe this has something to do with the "quality" of some of the immigrants? I have and still see no particular benefits.

Daggett has got it right. Overcrowding is one of the main contributing factors to civil unrest in Sydney.

While most of the debate, under many threads on this forum, concentrates on racial, ethnic and religious issues, there are two other huge factors seldom mentioned: overcrowding along with continuous ridiculously high immigration, mostly straight into the already overcrowded areas…. and resource stress.

The former is a huge issue. The latter is about to become a much bigger issue, not least with the peak oil crisis looming, something that I mention repeatedly on this forum.

All those who are worried about racial/ethnic/religious or any other tensions and civil strife had better get tuned into the world reality that the end of cheap fossil fuels will lead to, in the very near future, having already well and truly started.

If peak oil hits us really hard, we might just escape massive civil unrest and actually be drawn together. But if it hits reasonably gently, in haphazard steps which is most likely, it will lead to a massive escalation in civil strife, as inequalities become exacerbated, people lose their jobs, people can’t find food let alone afford it, etc.

Am I stating the bleeding obvious? I think so, but it seems that many people such as Eva Cox don’t see it that way.

Nice use of big, incomprehensible words, Sage. Inimicitious? Charientism? Did you swallow a dictionary for Christmas or something? Just a pity that despite the elitist words, your take on the matter at hand never rises above the simplistic. It has been said many times before, but here goes again: Australia has a necessary and valuable immigration policy that brings in mainly skilled migrants from all over the world, and they make a great contibution to the betterment of our society. The fact that a minority of the immigrants are criminals or behave anti-socially is not a reason to make a general condemnation of immigration from multi-national sources as Sage and others appear to do. The fact is, they are here, some of them are troublemakers, so what are we going to do about that?

Having said that, I agree with posts that viewed Eva's article as all rhetoric and no answers.

Identifying the right problem is crucial - otherwise we may invent "solutions" that have no bearing on the real problem.

When times are easy, people are more generous, when they are tough, then scapegoats must be found, differences between groups enlarged and magnified, and "the other' made into an homogenous whole. As Kipling said: "Even saints turn into sinners when they miss their customary dinners".

When the complexity of problems mounts, there will be a tendency in most to leap to the most simplest explanation - "its the Muslim's fault". What is devastating is when a few from the demonised group DO indeed behave in ways that confirms the stereotype - then it creates the justification for holding the predjudice and for some, erupting into (violent) retaliation. Evil is always seen in the other and not in ourselves, thus justifying any exaggerated response.