After I submitted the article on values and what we hold in common, Steve Irwin died. One only needs to look at the intensity and widespread nature of the public response to his life and death to realise that the traditional bushman ideal of the Australian character is alive and well.

Good article Kevin. It is only through the establishing our own identity we have any hope of embracing another. The attraction many have to Australia is this very identity and uniqueness – we have good reason to celebrate it and to not morosely dwell merely on the flaws.

Relda... the fact that you (like me) are saying things like "we need to establish our identity" speaks VOLUMES about how far we have fallen from 'who' we are because we lived it unchallenged on a daily basis.

I know my identity, and its Australian of Anglo/Celt heritage. I see it in poems like the Geebung Polo Club, Man from Snowy River, Man from IronBark, Clancy of the overflow,etc etc etc.... but I think it is best expressed by Dorothea McKella in the first 2 verses of her poem "My Country".

It is captured in the Australian Light Horse, and many other wonderful examples of the new person who is 'Australian'.

Kevin's noting of the 'Cultural Left' seeking to endorse “multiple perspectives” and “diverse views” is important. Socially this is the equivalent of 'Browns Cows'....going off in all directions.

This approach could not have anything to do with the large proportion of migrants in blue collar jobs and hence politically more in tune with 'the left'....could it ? :)

I can (and do) totally appreciate the history of other countries like Italy and Greece, and am fairly well read about the Empire of Alexander and of Rome. But I expect Italians and Greeks who come here (at our invitation) to bone up on our history as well. i.e. British, warts and all. It should be taught along with Australian history, including poetry and art.

I spent 8 yrs in Malaysian part of Borneo. Even before I arrived I had read up on the History of the place. The White Rajah's (as fascinating story). After 8 yrs I spoke an indigenous dialect and the Lingua Franca of Malaysia (Bahasa Malaysia) When I returned, I even THOUGHT in Malay... finding it easier. I think I did a pretty good job of assimilating to the place.

I ask the same of any migrant to Australia. Learn about us, know about us, assimilate with us as far as possible. Intermarry with us, socialize with us (and we with them).

Above all, put Australia first and ethnicity second. No square_pegs in round_holes:)

Kevin,

Of the twenty-something civilizations that have exited since Sumer (4,000 BCE), Western civilization (from 476 CE) has been the most successful. It is also the only civilization when on the cusp of decline has been able to pull out of the nose dive, trice. Egalitarianism has been a major factor, as co-opertion leads to the sharing of effort and the spread of information.

Control and deference work against peer cooperation. Political powers both left and right and fundamental Religion arrest individual freedoms and horizonal altruism. Thus,non-constistutional Monarchies, all-knowing Clergies, Fascists and Communists work to arrest independent thought.

Australia vis~a~vis most other countries, has been particualrly successful avoiding extreme ideologies; by-and-large, we have a celtic heritage, accept the ideals of the French reformation thinkers and have adapted well, when dropped in the deep-end, when Britain entered the Common Market.

The issue is not one of Race, but of Social Philosophy... Being liberated and not being told what to do. It's not even directly about Democracy, which is only a process. Rather,its is recognising autonomous syncrony of the People is not a tautology, because it fuses us towards better outcomes for Australia. Alien societies, religious extremists and some immigrant communities pull against these historically Western-Australian values.

“While it is true that Aborigines settled in this continent years before Europeans and migrants from many different races and cultures have made this country their home, the reality is that Australia’s development as a nation and its legal, political institutions and language are Anglo-Celtic in origin and deeply influenced by our Judeo-Christian heritage.”

Too right!

Cultural relativism is a crock used by the left when it suits them. When the cruel and barbaric practices of some cultures are mentioned, the cultural relativists go very, very quiet.

Too many Australians believe that we have just been ‘lucky’. That the hard work and solid cultural heritage and background that made Australia what it is counts for nothing. Their ‘un-Australian’ attitudes and disdain for the Australia culture might very well see everything go down the drain in the not so distant future.

Fortunately, it will be the dopey generation that will have to cope with it

“Learn about us, know about us, assimilate with us as far as possible. Intermarry with us, socialize with us (and we with them).” – I like your sentiment here David.

In a similar vein (but off topic), I enjoy listening to Mary Black’s “Flesh and Blood”. Her Irish rendition of the song is moving.

“Oh come on walk with me, talk with me,
Tell me your stories
I’ll do my best to understand you
You’re flesh and blood, flesh and blood
Don’t refuse me your love
More than words can express
More than wealth or success
Oh there’s a thousand things to do
So let’s start here with me and you
All the pain that you feel
All the hurt that seems so real…”

I suspect relativism in Australia started out as a reaction to those, like Menzies, who overly romanticised our British past. Unfortunately, things are now just as foolishly at the stage where academics and journalists are almost embarrassed to say anything nice about our British heritage or the role it plays in our own national existence.

As is usually the case when two extreme contrary views are put, the truth lies somewhere in between. We should celebrate the greatness of our Anglo-Judeo-Christian culture in all it's forms, and not apologise for it's faults, but instead learn from them.

At the same time we can still be free to embrace the excellent features of other cultural traditions. This is what Multiculturalism, ought to be - an enriching addition to our cultural gene pool which in time enhances our nations evolution. Unfortunately, Multiculturalism in it's relativist form, whereby all cultures are considered equivalent and beyond critical review, is like evolution without selection - like breeding the Australian racehorse with any old nag - a 'devolving' process.

Kevin and Leigh,

“the reality is that Australia’s development as a nation and its legal, political institutions and language are Anglo-Celtic in origin and deeply influenced by our Judeo-Christian heritage.”

-- Anglo-Celtic transmutation of Roman Law
-- Judeo-Christian traditions
-- Greek philosophy
-- The Australian nation in Western society

Nation states are only 200 years old. Countries which were ruled became governed. Westerners had to make transitions not only the Aborigines. Even as recently WWI, The Crown engendered non-judgmental patriotism... The Cooee March.

Significant for the West was the rediscovering of Greek philosophy, which fueled the Enlightenment and the partial break with Theism. Only the West discovered Science via The Great Diverence. Australia needs an independent indentity, within the West, but not from the West. Social behaviour, not Races, which do not comply are threatening. Alas, types of social behaviour are often positively correlated with Race

Whilst I think the response to Kev's article has been largely positive and has brought out a good discussion, I think that one thing must be considered.

For all the talk of egalitarianism, freedom and individuality, it must be remembered that "anti-democratic forces" have often upheld Western civilisation and our traditions when democracies have failed. Charles de Gaulle is the perfect example of such a man, who saw culture and nation as an important grounding against the individualism that some strands of democracy create. In Australia, monarchy has been a bulkward against absolute power for democratic institutions... without Royal Assent, then Jack Lang and Gough Whitlam would have threatened our institutions by weakening our nation. Ours is a system where, ironically, intervention by the unelected rulers results in a democratic election, which generally turfs out the government.

The problem is, to simplify Western civilisation as just about democracy and freedom is to wrong it, for that allows cultural relativism. Western civilisation is based importantly around notions of society and culture which see space for the individuals within society, but the paramount importance of society. Switzerland is the perfect example of how notions of society, individual dignity (a result largely of a Christian belief in the individual worth of beings), and tolerance of others, can create a society with great longevity and success.

Cultural relativism has forever destroyed much of Europe. Aided by unchecked immigration, it has weakened the social capital, not because immigrants don't want to do good, but because the drop in the birth-rate and immigration have occured at a pace which has resulted in ethnic ghettos. Now, in England, it's impossible for a politician to describe Britishness without being berated for his lack of 'tolerance'. Immigration is not the primary problem, however, it is breaking of the continuity with the cultural history of Europe, in music, art, archtecture, the family, religion and political philosophy.

Western civilisation is not about choice and democracy... it is primarily culture and tradition, which often democracies uphold, and which often military and monarchy do.

What a yawn all this navel gazing is. Our history is as brutal as any other history but we refuse to face it. Read the aboriginal books where whites used the blacks as slaves, raped the women, murdered the men and so on. Judeo christian, what a sick joke that is.

Federation in 1901 allowed aborigines to be classified as flora and fauna and they didn't become humans until 1967. Our ancestors were still taking their half-breed children until 1972, it was not some dark lie.

We went willingly to two world wars for Britain and tens of thousands of the millions slaughtered never came back. Vietnam saw 3 million murdered at our hands with the US, Iraq x 2, Afghanistan and so on.

We sat on our hands while 183,000 East Timorese were murdered on our doorstep and now when the West Papuans are suffering the same fate.

Peaceful democracy? These white arm band views are ludicrous and no matter how many times we claim we are peaceful we keep bombing other people to bits. Always people who have never hurt us.

And Kevin, rewriting things will not have us as victors in Gallipolli.

Marilyn,just the first two lines in your posts always give you away. What a pity you have to live in such an evil country.
Once again John Howard has given the muslims another serve, much to their disgust and once again there comes the 'victim' wail of unfair, unfair.
The president of the Daawah Association[they have a lot of these things] Sufyaan Khalifa said, " This is not going to help Muslims, it will only cause more hatred." And,"We would like sincerely to understand what he means by 'Australian Values'"
If you do not understand the values of a country before you choose to migrate to that country, aren't you taking a very great risk?Simply walking blind into another country and not knowing anything about it sounds plain feckless.
Walking into another country, accepting the charity and benefits of that country then turning around and abusing it, threatening it with possible violence if your culture doesn't get privileges that other cultures do not will not win you any respect or wish that you prolong your stay here.
By not respecting our values, you should have citizenship stripped and be told to go. We only want migrants who will be good citizens who abide by our laws and who respect our traditions.

Marylin,

You are a shinning example of why relativist thinking, with it's complete lack of self-belief and self-worth, does nothing to advance our nation.

Your statement that "Our history is as brutal as any other history" also implies that every other history is as brutal as ours. So why do you condemn 'us' for our failures?

What about 'our' successes, do you ever celebrate those, or does it some how pain you to find that Australians aren't any worse, and sometimes better than the 'competition'?

Marylin,

" What a yawn all this navel gazing is. Our history is as brutal as any other history but we refuse to face it. Read the aboriginal books where whites used the blacks as slaves, raped the women, murdered the men and so on. Judeo christian, what a sick joke that is. "

I am fascinated with your post. My simple question to you: "If you hate Australia, then why do you trouble yourself by living here? I read that you love Afghan men. Better go there and enjoy. Islamic history is lovely. They treat women like goddesses. They will crown you as Queen. "

More of the same contradictory ideology from Kevin D.

He writes aborigines out of our history (the "wrong" tradition, dontcha know?) then says we believe in egalitarianism and fairness. Not for aborigines, apparently.

And what of immigrants to our country from another tradition? What of the Vietnamese and Chinese? Second generation Vietnamese now, what happens to their family histories and backgrounds? Do "we" refuse to learn from them, let them add nothing to our society?

He says we have a "proud history of democratic freedom, based on the Westminster parliamentary system and English common law", then in the same sentence says "we have led the world in introducing reforms such as universal franchise, the old age pension and a conciliation and arbitration system ". Which is it? Do we lead or follow? Are we creating a progressive new society or following an old English one?

He acknowledge globalization, with "international travel, music, film, the Internet and other forms of entertainment make national borders redundant and impose a homogenous view of culture". Impose? Or is it the global cultural marketplace which gives us the choice? To resist global culture we must know "who and what we are as a nation". Is Kevin D a Cultural Communist who would make a command economy of our cultural lives? And what national culture is it? The English, Judeo-Christian nation, he says, which we share with Western Europe and the US. So it's not unique, then, because we don't include Aboriginal culture or the unique mix of immigrant cultures which make up contemporary Australia. No, it's a general globalized Western tradition he wants, exactly the one which he complained was being "imposed" upon us!

This piece is a mess of contradictions, and poorly thought-through and argued ideology.

Must try harder. 5/10

Kevin asks what should young people be taught about the past and what is the narrative that best tells our story? Young people should be certainly taught about our inherited past as a colony of the United Kingdom. They should also be taught about the White Australia policy, the voting rights of women and aboriginals and our immigration history.

As for Kevin's "grand narrative associated with a celebratory, Anglo-Celtic, Christian view of Australian society" and Western Civilisation supremacy - keep going mate, and beware of those non-assimilating Others.

What creates separatist enclaves? Not non-assimilating migrants, but people who hide behind patriotism and "leftist"-bashing to exclude non-Anglo Saxon Australians. You're welcome here if you know our history, speak our language, and "assimilate" by inter-marriage - dear Kevin, sounds like the White Australia policy to me.

What I really love about this type of piece is the way it flushes out the innate contradictions behind "our culture".

>>in relation to Western Civilisation as transplanted to these shores, I would argue that while it is far from perfect, it is certainly superior to the rest.<<

Hmmm, that's a bit smug, but ok, it's the author's opinion. I suspect he also uses it as the rationale behind the colonization of Australia two hundred plus years ago. 'Hey, we are the superior beings, those who live here already can go jump in the lake. Or we can push them in, same difference.'

At least he is being honest in his reasons for forcing the locals into submission.

Boaz unfortunately doesn't see the irony in his position statement:

>>I can (and do) totally appreciate the history of other countries like Italy and Greece, and am fairly well read about the Empire of Alexander and of Rome. But I expect Italians and Greeks who come here (at our invitation) to bone up on our history as well. i.e. British, warts and all. It should be taught along with Australian history, including poetry and art.<<

The British didn't come here by invitation, Boaz. And they certainly didn't "bone up" on aboriginal history.

Two hundred years in the grand scheme of things is not a particularly long time. Some people consider it is long enough for the proto-British culture to have taken root, and for it to be the de facto basis of our traditions and heritage. Others believe that we are still a young country, without a clear definition of who we are or why we exist.

It is particularly instructive that we consider a zookeeper and a racing driver to be iconic. That, plus the fuss we make over their lives and deaths should tell us a lot more about ourselves than any amount of intellectualizing.

But we aren't listening. That's not the Australian way.

Yawn, here we go again - defending Australia no matter what the truth really is.

My German family came here in 1844, stole the land north of the Adelaide Plains and drove out the aboriginal owners, then they moved to the mallee and did the same thing. It is in the history books for heavens' sake. Should I simply ignore it?

Then the Cornish and Welsh, Irish and English came from 1890 - 1920, moved to the mallee and helped to drive off the aborigines and steal the land. It is now ruined out there you know. Mile after mile of scrub was torn down by my family in the name of planting more crops. The land is a giant dustbowl, it is a salt pan with tonnes of fertiliser required to grow anything. I know because I watched it all happen in the 1950's and 60's. Then I left.

My English grandfather went to war for the Poms, not for Australia, and spent 6 years in the piss, s..t and blood so that Australia would not lock up children in the deserts, not follow blindly to other stupid wars and in the 1960's got an exemption for his youngest son not to go to Vietnam.

Do not lecture me about my history in the country and do not ever, ever tell me I have to leave because I don't like what is happening to it.

Do you pathetic children get my drift?

Marilyn,

My German family came here in 1844, stole the land north of the Adelaide Plains and drove out the aboriginal owners...piss, s..t and blood.

My dear Marilyn, and the aboriginal owners did piss, s..t and killed the previous owners of those lands.

So, your crying with 'crocodile-tears' now benefits none, neither aborigines nor your children. Better live in Afghanistan with your lovely dream-men than loathing about your grandpa/parents here

Dr Donnelly believes Western culture is "superior to the rest". Dare we say, 'Western culture....uber alles'?

I think Western culture has a lot going for it, but surely Dr Donnelly claims too much to state that "the very values of tolerance, compassion, openness and civility...are culturally specific and based on our Western heritage."

Since myriad examples of these qualities can be found in Chinese, south-east Asian, Pacific, native American, sub-saharan African, Buddhist or Hindu cultures, the claim is clearly false. Perhaps Dr Donnelly would like to clarify what he meant?

If we are to entertain the notion that certain values are "culturally specific" then we must confront the uncomfortable truth that the values of Nazism, Fascism and Soviet Communism are also "based on our Western heritage." Western culture uber alles indeed.

The problem with claims of such values being culturally-specific is that it sets up "values" as territory, to be divided between nations in line with imperial practice. Which is a great idea, if you long for the 19th century.

Maybe we need to entertain the possibility that tolerance, compassion, openness and civility are best served by refraining from making claims of superiority. How do we preserve our tolerant, compassionate, open and civil society by becoming intolerant, uncompassionate, closed and uncivil towards anybody who has other views?

Oh, isn't it so easy (and childish) to just tell others to live somewhere else rather than to actually engage in intelligent discussion on the issue?

Comments about peoples' taste in men are both rude as they are extremely irrelevant.

I cannot see anything in Marilyn's original post which suggest she hates Australia. Please people, get rid of the rhetoric, address the issue. She challenges whether or not Australia has a brutal and violent history. Fair challenge, I say. She does not declare her hatred for Australia.

mickijo says:

"By not respecting our values, you should have citizenship stripped and be told to go. We only want migrants who will be good citizens who abide by our laws and who respect our traditions."

Hilarious. Imagine this apppying to our convict founding fathers! What traditions, pray tell?

Marilyn Shepherd, you overstate your case about the treatment of Aborigines.

Aborigines were not first treated as "human" in 1967. In fact, from the first they were considered to be under the protection of British law, and there were white settlers hanged for killing Aborigines.

It's true that Aborigines were not all given the vote in 1901. However, you have to understand that it wasn't likely that they would be. You have to remember that in most Western countries it was only a highly-educated and wealthy elite who were thought responsible enough to vote. The debate about extending the vote to the working-class hinged on whether the working-class was sufficiently well-educated and prosperous to be part of the franchise.

Tasmanian (white) men were only given this trust as late as the 1890s. Was it really likely that all Aborigines, many of whom lived remotely from white settlements and had no English, would be thought eligible to vote? In what meaningful sense could such Aborigines engage in the political process?

As late as the 1930s there were still tribes of Aborigines who killed outsiders who stumbled into their territory. In one case in the Northern Territory, anthropologists from Melbourne were sent in to "make contact" and to persuade the Aborigines to discontinue the practice.

In general, the states did have the power to add Aborigines who were thought sufficiently integrated into mainstream society to the electoral roll and this did happen (most prominently with Aborigines who served in the armed forces).

It's legitimate to argue that the franchise might have happened earlier than 1967 or that more could have been done to integrate outlying Aborigines. But it shows a lack of historical perspective to think that any society in the world would have granted all Aborigines the vote in 1901 - the Australians of that era had already pushed democracy to the furthest extent then known.

Marylin,

Good on you, great posts. Can somebody please explain to me why love of one's country should eqaute to never ever criticising anyhting at all that country does? That's like saying that a truly loving parent is one that never ever tells his children that they did something wrong.

To be mindlessly accepting of anything Australia ever does is not love of country, to criticise our actions as a nation is not to hate Australia.

I think one of the ways we express our love for Australia is to recognise the mistakes that were made in the past to make sure they are never repeated, this makes a country stronger, fairer, aware of its history and learning from it, not to mention one which encourages open and robust debate (I thought that was one of "our" values, is it not?!).

Love of country, is to pride oneself in our achievements and success and to admit our mistakes, face up to them and correct them. That's what responsible adults do in their lives, I don't see why it should not apply to the way we think and feel about our contry.

"It is particularly instructive that we consider a zookeeper and a racing driver to be iconic."

Personally, I don't consider them to be that special, although I certainly don't have anything against them. I don't really know much about them, but what I do know tips them slightly to the positive side for me. That aside, I'm kind of glad that in this country we have to clutch at some boof-headed yobos for national icons. If a guy who speaks in a ridiculous accent, gets around in an even more ridiculous outfit and gets excited about large reptiles is the best or worst of it in this country, then that's fine by me. Ditto for a guy who likes to drive round a racing track. At least we don't have the laundry list of tyrants, raving mad artists and manic depressive composers that some regions of the world cling to. Likewise, whilst we've been silly enough to get involved in other people's silly battles and wars, at least we haven't inflicted such nonsense on ourselves. Australia certainly isn't perfect, but its highs and lows are generally less extreme than in most of the world, and I think that's what makes it what it is.

Excellent posts Marilyn Shepherd.

Mickijo:

The Vietnamese have the highest rate of Australian citizenship. The British have the lowest percentage and yet they make up the highest percentage of immigrants to this country.

They mustn’t feel patriotic. By your logic perhaps we should deport them back to England?

The article was nicely dressed up with fancy jingoism and tell-tale patriotism, cleverly disguised as a ‘new way’ of appreciating Australian-ness.

I love that I can critique Australia knowing perfectly well that it’s in its infancy and has a long way to go before it reaches the stage of Superiority and Perfection over others that Kevin has presumed already exists.

The truth is that history pervades our foundation, our senses and our existence. The claim that we are a democratic nation heeds no praise from me when one of our basic and essential human rights of freedom of press and communication is in jeopardy with the current monopolisation of the media by Rupert Murdoch and his tyrannic empire. Censorship and propaganda exists in our press on such a large scale that people are now resorting to the internet for their news because the chances of censorship, bigotry and bias are reduced somewhat.

If we want to claim British heritage then maybe we should emulate our “founding fathers” instead of leaning towards the US so fervently. Perhaps we should look at the way their press runs, the way the public sphere is structured and the immense success of their multiracial society. Not even the London bombings could severely shake the Brits in their boots and make them fear a collective people and religion like their convict counterparts. Perhaps we are too susceptible to those almighty powers that have set the example before us.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression…freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." (United Nations, 1997)

Yes even Germaine Greer is allowed to speak her mind. So buck up Australia and deal with it.

TO MARILYN
This blaming of the West for all the territorial warfare on the planet ignores the fact that all of mankind is territorial . There have been many conquerors (territorial males) throughout history from many cultures who have ridden in at the head of armies(territorial males), and taken control of other peoples land and countries. Usually enslaving the people and committing mass ethnic cleansing as they did.

The west who have tribal links going back to the Vikings and the Romans have indeed been successful takers of territory because of their superior weapons and military knowhow that’s why we enjoy just a prosperous life style today . We are also envied for our territorial wealth and that is why with all the young virile fighting males in these overpopulated countries we were always in danger of territorial attack . They know they cant take the great armoured Lion of the West in a head on battle. So they hit and run, hit and run, with these territorial attacks hoping to land enough wounds to bring the Western Lion down.

.They also understand the Western media very well and they play mind games with us which the appeasers grab on to like straws hoping that if only we can find out whats making them angry we can save ourselves. Don’t forget they are probably on the internet with people in Western countries all the time finding out the mindset of the media and public and how to manipulate that knowledge. If I was trying to bring down a superior power like the West that’s how I play the game wouldn’t you.



.

“Much of mankind’s history is a story of bitter and violent warfare, civil unrest and destruction, Australia, by comparison, has a settled and peaceful record.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, this is just off the top of my head, but hasn’t Australia participated in every English war since settlement? Not to mention Vietnam.

And aren’t we now participating in major military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

And aren’t we now militarily colonizing our “own backyard”, or “sphere of influence”.

Very peaceful indeed. It seems that these "history" advocates want a carefully spun version of our history taught in our schools.

Also, I agree with supporters of Marilyn Shepherd. I don’t necessarily agree with all of her conclusions (like the need to “intervene” in East Timor etc.) but at least she has the guts to passionately question the received “wisdom” blasted at us from every possible direction by the ruling elite. Unlike her critics.

Nice one Tao.

Two cheers for free speech!

I would defend with my life the right of every single one of you to say what you say.

Mostly because it protects my right to say that, in the case of those who believe their culture is superior to all others (whether it's Dr Donnelly or Osama bin you-know-who) we'd all be better off you kept those thoughts to yourself! :0)

"Correct me if I’m wrong, this is just off the top of my head, but hasn’t Australia participated in every English war since settlement?"

tao: Not the Falklands War. :P

Seriously though, yes, it's something that irks me about our history, that this nation has (and is still) always willing to be someone else's gun fodder for stupid wars (tautology, I know). It's why I find Gallipoli to be at once the worst possible national myth we could adopt, and yet also the most appropriate, strangely enough.

That having been said, as much of a ratbag as John Howard is, this country has never produced a Cromwell, Hitler, Stalin or Robespierre. We've had no Mao or Pol Pot, no Idi Amin. We lack a Lincoln or a Pinochet. I feel glad of that.

And for those of you suggesting Marilyn should go live somewhere else if she doesn’t like our “democracy”, the opening passages of the American Declaration of Independence (once the platform of the greatest democracy on earth which has now unfortunately become a mere shell) suggests she is right to question our form of government and society, and even change it if necessary:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Marilyn, and others, have every right to challenge the system, and our beliefs about ourselves as a “nation” – from within. Attempts by people on this forum to portray her as a hysterical mad-woman who should go elsewhere if she doesn’t like it are just plain wrong.

They play into the hands of those who attempt to silence our dissent and questioning.

'...its legal, political institutions and language are Anglo-Celtic in origin and deeply influenced by our Judeo-Christian heritage.'

Yes accurate to a degree but:

Our political systems were not at all influenced by the Judeo-Christian creeds. Neither had democratic thought at all. That influence came from our much forgotton GREEK heritage and the great body of LIBERAL thought developed over the past couple of centuries.

Our language was not influenced by the Hebrews it is rooted in the LATIN of the Romans.

Our legal system, while it endorses some of the Ten Commandments is not based only on them. The vast majority of our law is derived from that great body of ENGLISH Common Law and the modern LEGESLATIVE form of law-making.The Latter is subject to many many more influences besides mere Judeo-Christian thought.

So just exactly how and exactly how deeply is our system influenced by the system and thought of the Hebrews?

When I began reading the replies to this article, I was seriously concerned by the ranting and raving it elicited. To Marilyn, Pericles, tao, et. al., well done on injecting some common sense into the discussion - I find it difficult to respond to a lot of the reactionary, provocative rhetoric found here and I am glad you have done so for me, as I was at a loss where to begin!

Marilyn,

"Our history is as brutal as any other history but we refuse to face it. Read the aboriginal books where whites used the blacks as slaves, raped the women, murdered the men and so on."

Your describe a History of History, not just Western history. Ancient Italy was invaded by the Terremare and Villanovans, Ancient Greece by the Achiaemans and Dorians, Ancient Antolia by the Hittes and Lydians & Phrygians, Ancient Egypt by the Hyksos, the Ancient Levant by the Mitanni and Philistines, Ancient Mesopotamia by the Kassites, Ancient Iran by the Persians and Ancient India by the Ayrans. Moving beyond the Bronze Age and Iron Age invaders, we can see the Mongols and the Manchus invaded China. The Vikings invaded Nomandy (911 CE) and the Normans invaded England (1066 CE). England suppressed the Scots and the Irish. England colonised much of the world under mercantilism. Mercantilism lead to the Opium Wars in China.

Marilyn, if you will read History you will find that Aboriginals are not that special in being invaded. If England didn't invade, Russia, Holland, Germany or Indonesia would have conquered the continent.

Moreover, aboriginals clans engaged in war, rape and murder too.

Moreover, the aboriginals clans did not arrive together. Generic footprints suggest five migrations in the Ice Age (lower water levels) and the modern invasion. Otherwise, the original aboriginals were invaded four times black skinned peoples, before the whites.

The early squatters broke regional limits set by The Crown and illegally pushed inland and murdered the first groups of continental peoples.

In the eighteen century, in the Atlantic, Britannia was in conflict with the American colonies, because of it stance against black slavery (black sklaves, whom practised slavery themselves back in Africa.

I wonder who should read history? Marilyn, go to the library and read!

ERRATUM

Generic [GENETIC] footprints suggest five migrations in the Ice Age.

So if we were all just more like Kevin Donnelly Australian history, culture and education would work out just fine? What puke.

To paraphase Al Gore - Humans have not remained anchored in the stone age for fear of running out of stones, so why do we, as Australians, cling on to our white anglo-saxon past with such tenacity?

Yes, there have been benefits but those benefits are now sounding more like the ethnic drum beat of fundamentalists - not a society eager to embrace the future and what it may hold. Rather, I hear a fear articulated within Australia that is more isolationist than embracing, more exclusive than inclusive. This exclusivity extends to such infantile rebellion as refusing to sign Kyoto or adhearing to the ICJ, or the UN while all the time holding the door shut to the thousands of refugees living on a hope to give their kids a chance.

Australia has a dark history that has been the subject of a learned ignorance which continues to resonate in the words of Howard and Costello conveniently forgetting that all of us are refugees in this land.

Hi tao,

Marilyn wrote:

" I felt entirely safe with 130 young Afghan men that night - I rarely feel safe alone with even a couple of Australian men.. "

So, I think it is safe for her to go and live in relatively safe place i.e Afganistan than Australia. However, it's my suggestion. Marilyn knows which country is safer to her.

To those who are saying Freedom of Speech etc..: Where were you during the Mohammed-Cartoon-Saga?

tao, are you the same woman who said that the British deserve 7/7 in BBC Fivelive Message boards?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbfivelive/F214856

tao, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbfivelive/F2148564

Hey Bozo.

(If that is your real name).

Where was I when the Muslims protested against their entire religion and world community being portrayed as terrorists? I was out there protesting with them. Because I don't see it as being just a cartoon or an example of expressing freedom of speech. I see it as being a dangerous form of propaganda that will filtrate the minds of the ignorant much in the same way as it did in WW1 and WW2.

Was it right to react the way they did? No.
Does that make the cartoon right? Hardly.

Frankly as much as I advocate "freedom of speech" I'm pretty sure that the cartoon and it's anti Islamic sentiments further defy the conventions set out in the Declaration of Human Rights. So much in fact that it outweighs the "Freedom of speech" card. So pull another one.

Marilyn was clearly making a clever point that you have taken out of context and used against her in order to paint her as the enemy. It's not working. Pull another one.

Finally accusing Tao of advocating 7/7 does nothing to help your argument. Besides of course explaining how you arrived at your current nickname.

Oliver, you claim that Aborigines are not that special for being invade. You recite a whole list of invasions. The difference, and big one at that, is that Aborigines were invaded in modern history. That they are suffering the consequences of such invasion to this day.

These examples:

"Ancient Italy was invaded by the Terremare and Villanovans, Ancient Greece by the Achiaemans and Dorians, Ancient Antolia by the Hittes and Lydians & Phrygians, ..."

are absolutely irrelevant. We are talking about people who were colonised in recent history.

Mark Richardson - I think you make a valid point about the right to vote and the issues relating to that - given that women were also disenfranchised in 1901. However, I suspect that it is the categorisation of them as flora and fauna which is the issue. I am not sure what you mean by Marilyin overstating the treatment of Aboriginals - have you read the Bringing them Home report?

Many Australians criticised apartheid in South Africa but fail to acknowledge the apartheid practiced here.

"if you will read History you will find that Aboriginals are not that special in being invaded. If England didn't invade, Russia, Holland, Germany or Indonesia would have conquered the continent.
Moreover, aboriginals clans engaged in war, rape and murder too.
Moreover, the aboriginals clans did not arrive together. Generic footprints suggest five migrations in the Ice Age (lower water levels) and the modern invasion. Otherwise, the original aboriginals were invaded four times black skinned peoples, before the whites."

This is a very ncie example of right-wing moral relativism.

Another dismal article from Kevin Donnelly, and another thread derailed by the usual supects. Pathetic really.

The grinding noises you can now hear are Jules Francois Archibald and Joseph Furphy spinning in their respective graves. The Francophile anti-imperialist Archibald and the gentle pious bushman Furphy would no doubt be puzzled to find themselves harnessed to Dr Donnelly's bandwagon, especially as both would have vehemently rejected Kevin's views. Check their biographies here http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A030046b.htm and here http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A080618b.htm

Kevin Donnelly's simplistic understanding of Australian history is astonishing. The growth of Australian nationalism has a complex history and anti-Semitism, anti-imperialism, racism, protectionism, eugenics and isolationism have all been used (at one time or another) to bolster it. If you think these ideas are dead, have a look here http://home.alphalink.com.au/~eureka/index.html

Reading this article sent my cliche-meter went off the scale ("cultural relativism", "Anglo-Celtic heritage" "Judeo-Christian" "separatist enclaves" etc etc), but I nearly fell off my chair when I discovered that Kevin wanted children taught a "grand narrative associated with a celebratory, Anglo-Celtic, Christian view of Australian society". Its fortunate that J.F. Archibald is dead, because otherwise Kevin would be due for a good punch in the nose.

obozo,

So what if Marilyn feels safer among Afghani men than Australian men? It doesn’t mean she doesn’t have the right to live here and say what she considers to be the truth. If you are an example of all the Australian men she’s met, I understand why she feels the way she does.

Saying that because she “loves” Afghanis she should go and live there is about as mature as children taunting each other in a playground. Can’t you just hear it now? - “Maaar-a-lyn loves Af-ghaaaa-nis …. Maaar-a-lyn loves Af-ghaaaa-nis”.

Surely you can come up with a more intelligent argument? Then again, maybe you can’t.

Or is it more malicious than that? In segregated America, and probably elsewhere, if white people dared to treat blacks like humans they were labeled nigger-lovers. The social, economic and even physical consequences for them were harsh.

Is this what you are getting at? Perhaps you consider Marilyn a Muslim-lover. Perhaps, rather than Marilyn leaving of her own accord, you would like to have her deported, locked up, lynched.

It obviously doesn’t sit comfortably with people like you to have “Australians” pointing out that Afghanis or Muslims are human – hence your infantile spiteful attempts to discredit them.

I guess also, a lot of redneck men also feel threatened that “their” women might find Afghani men better companions than Aussie men.

Seeing as we’re telling people where to go, perhaps you should go back into your cave and pick your teeth with a bone shard. Come out when you have evolved.

P.S. – no I’m not the person on BBC whatever.

P.P.S - By the way Marilyn, good letter in The Age today.

keith: Thanks for pointing out our non-Judeo-Christian heritage, which is, as you note, largely derived from pagan sources. Did you know, for instance, that most of the U.S. Founding Fathers were deists and Jefferson rewrote the Bible to remove references of Jesus as the son of God?

fleurette: I think it's dangerous to ever start putting anything before freedom of speech. The whole point of freedom of speech is that you take the good with the bad and hopefully, because everyone has the right to say something, the bad gets shot down in flames rationally, rather than simply banned.

The irony in mentioning WW1 and WW2 (aside from being quite different conflicts), is that censorship was apparently "justified" at the time in order to prevent moral corruption (usually of the youth) or enemy propoganda. Of course this was practised by all sides, but it was particularly bad in the fascist nations and in the Soviet Union. Without the ability of free speech, German culture, which was one of the most advanced in almost all realms of human endeavour and intellectual inquiry, ended up on the course it did and even ended up burning books.

Censorship has always been manipulated one way or another, so I think it's the wrong path to go down. I think we should let it all be put out there in the public sphere. If people want to write jihadist nonsense, fine. If people want to write anti-jihadist, or anti-Islamic nonsense, fine. You know, Voltaire and all that stuff. Let's let people make up their own minds for themselves. Why is Islam so sacred that it can't suffer the same ridicule and satire that virtually every other belief system (religious or political) comes under in the west? Is it really that fragile? Are Muslims really that fragile? I'm inclined to believe that anyone who can't laugh at himself, or is unwilling to reflect on those elements of his belief system that appear comical to outsiders is the one with deep issues, not those doing the laughing.

Shorbe, you make some valid points, Re: the deism of the American founders, free speech and censorship – can only but agree with it all.

In remembering cultural relativism is as crude as nationalism, “Every man calls barbarous anything he is not accustomed to; we have no other criterion of truth or right reason than the example and form of the opinions and customs of our won country. There we always find the perfect religion, the perfect polity, the most developed way of doing anything.” - Montaigne

Western culture, with its inherited Greco-Roman heritage gave us philosophers which have shaped much of what we now hold, including the structure of much religious thinking (e.g. Plato’s theory of Forms). We have evolved from a birthright gained in Europe. The ambiguous triumph of the ‘West’ has been a flawed, complicated and paradoxical one – it would be too simplistic to state otherwise.

The parallels between Christianity and Islam are interesting – both faiths make (or have made) demands on the intellect and require the acknowledgement they’re true. Both are monotheistic and indebted to the cultural inheritance of the tribal societies of the Middle East with their Semitic language. Both are religions of the Book (Christian Bible & Muslim Koran). Politically, they’ve turned out very different – maturing and developing in very different and historical contexts. Christianity was cradled by the cities of the Roman Empire, Islam by the desert. Islam knew nothing of the potentials for conflict between the laws of God and those of Caesar –this was an important part of Roman Christianity from the start.

We do have something to celebrate, however, the faith that history is progressive may have perhaps led us to set goals psychologically unattainable – many seem to think that any physical or mental pain ought to be somehow removable. This is a legacy of our utopianism and our confidence in the rational manipulation of nature – perhaps a ‘Faustian’ urge for power, relentless in its drive. This ambiguous ‘gift’ of the West, along with our self-centredness, may well pass along also the bias for self-destruction.

Several posters now have referred to the idea that the constitution in 1901 somehow categorised Aborigines as "native flora and fauna" rather than as humans.

I'm going to call them on this one. I want some (primary) evidence for this - otherwise it falls into the category of myth.

It's true that Chapter 7, section 127 of the Australian Constitution did read that "aboriginal natives" were not counted as part of the census. But the Constitution never spoke of Aborigines as being "fauna".

So who did? Was there a state government somewhere which wanted to count the Aboriginal population and did so under the guise of "flora and fauna"? I've never read of any such thing occurring. If it did, it's up to those asserting it happened to provide the evidence. Which government did so? In which year? For what purpose?

shorbe Thankyou for your info. I did not know about the Deists in the US. But for them to be such is hardly a surprise for they were people determined to decide their own destinies.

shorbe and relda
Yes, quite correct, part of our heritage is derived from pagan sources but we rejected their ideas of gods and religion. We have largely adopted and refined the Hebrew heritage of the thoughts of Christ and his followers in that area. Which makes us not merely pagan but a mixture of pagan reason and christian semitism. Which I think is quite reasonable so long as one of our heritages does not dominate.
That is also part of the great paradox of western development to which you refer relda and I agree with your other sentiments. However I've always felt the Romans added little to our intellectual or philosophical development. They produced few philosophers. They were largely a conduit for the Hebrew influence.

I have no idea of what our legacy may be but it may be more in line with that which we have received. A reasoned quest for health, wealth and happiness.

keith: This isn't a Monthy Python sketch is it? "What have the Romans ever done for us?" Seriously though, in many ways you're right. A lot of Roman culture was borrowed, especially from the Greeks, although perhaps their ability to channel and refine the ideas and practices of others was one of their strong points. Most of their writers or philosophers are pretty well unknown these days, including the much under-rated Lucretius (who was actually an Epicurean, but who organised the Epicurean philosophy more coherently).

relda: Good points.

I tend to think that what makes any belief system or culture attractive and successful is ultimately what limits it or even leads to its own downfall. Our own set of ideas in the west is no exception. That's not to say that I hold every set of beliefs as equal, but merely that our own system has its limitations.

shorbe:

In the Roman's latter centuries it lost touch with Greek philosophy and Latin overshadowed the Greek language. In the Western Empire, were Western covilization arose, Greek contribution was all but lost. Thus, the Dark Ages. Luckly, the Greek heritage survived Byzantine Empire, and rediscovered by the West leading to the Great Divergence.

Blackstone:

Compare a map of the 1930s and today. One will see considerable change. My point was it is invasion represents the "History of History"; ancient, medievil and modern. Everyone has been invaded. That does make it right: But it is how the system works.

Colonisation continues to this day. In South East Asia, it broke-up in 1950s-1970s, but Truman prolonged it. He didn't want to upset peer powers (e.g., the French in Viet-nam)

mhar:

Not only relativism but also absolutism.

Any techologically advanced society is going to destroy a technologically primitive society. Albeit, the first four immigrant groups might have been ideologically advanced. (Qing) China couldn't stand against up the West. What chance did the original clans have? None.

The West destroyed aboriginal culture at every level: ideological, socioligical and technological. We do, repeat, do, have responsibility but no-one can Humpty back together. The Chinese could reconstitute, they had a civilization with empire. Regretably, the 300,000 to one million prior inhabitants (c. 1780) were a tribal (not a nasty word) people. Assimilation, or, a better word, fusion, between societies, requires lessening tribal/familial bonds, and partipating in the wider world.

Prince Philip was once asked, "What would England do, if Australia dropped the Crown"? He replied, "What could we do"? Point is, Australia is, not the Faulklands or Northern Ireland or Aboriginal clans. Australian aboriginals are protected by the Western, New World, technological umbrella.

Marilyn:

Please respond when you can. Thanks

What is Australian history/culture, the majority of Australians live in Urban areas. That majority would not have a clue who Chips Rafferty was, let alone the abuse of Aborigines.

History/culture! "Is it on special? What shelf is it on?"

The only culture we know, is when there is culture on the food in the fridge.

Mark Richardson :

A decade long struggle ended with a referendum in May 1967, which changed the sections of the Constitution that mentioned Aboriginal people. They would no longer be included in the Flora and Fauna Act, they would have rights to vote and be included in the census.

In answer to your question, Aboriginal people weren't even included in the Constitution. They were expressly included in the Flora and Fauna Act (Cth).

Blackstone:

" In answer to your question, Aboriginal people weren't even included in the Constitution. They were expressly included in the Flora and Fauna Act (Cth). "

That was a shameful sutuation.

Hey fleurette,

(If that is your real name)

So, you are there with cartoon-protestors and may I know the slogans of your protest (for eg: Behead those who insult Islam etc.) . You see it as " being a dangerous form of propaganda that will filtrate the minds of the ignorant ".. Actually the cartoonist did it to make muslims think of their religion, the oppression of women etc. But, the ignorant (yes) and arrogant fools, did exactly what he illustrated in cartoons. The cartoons show mohammed with a bomb on his head and it became true - the angry muslims killing many people (how sick, they kill themselves sometimes in fury), setting flags (i wonder where they get flags from?) & embassies on fire, and gave bomb-threats.

Was it right to react the way they did? No.
Does that make the cartoon right? Absolutely right ..as you can see that they behaved exactly like in the cartoon.

Paint Marilyn as enemy? Marilyn considers all of the Australians as enemies.

Hey fleurette, I have debated with tao in UK message boards. Just asked a question to clarify if she is the same. If u dont mind, explain how you arrived at your current nickname.

tao,

" So what if Marilyn feels safer among Afghani men than Australian men? " tao, I gave her a "peaceful" advice/suggestion i.e to live in a place where she feels SAFE as LIFE is valuable either Marilyn's or yours. What's the point in living in a dangerous country and shouting?

" Saying that because she “loves” Afghanis she should go and live there is about as mature as children taunting each other in a playground. Can’t you just hear it now? - “Maaar-a-lyn loves Af-ghaaaa-nis …. Maaar-a-lyn loves Af-ghaaaa-nis”. "

No, she is like a child taunting : " Aussi-e-s hate Muslims..My grand-pa killed aborigines..My papa stole their land..And I cry...Aussi-e-s hate Muslims..My grand-pa killed aborigines..My papa stole their land..And I cry."

" I guess also, a lot of redneck men also feel threatened that “their” women might find Afghani men better companions than Aussie men. "

It's actually the opposite. Yeah, a lot of Muslim men are threatened that "their" women will fall in love with " Australian ". That's why they make them cover with black-dress from head to toe with holes only for eyes.

"Seeing as we’re telling people where to go, perhaps you should go back into your cave and pick your teeth with a bone shard. "

Yes, I'll go back but only if you go back to your 'scum'. ok?

P.S: I have "lovely" debates with "tao" on BBC.

P.P.S - By the way Marilyn, see the replies to your letter in the Australian

obozo,

just as I suspected, you can't come up with an intelligent argument

Blackstone, I asked for evidence about the Aborigines being regarded as "fauna". Your reply was simply that:

"A decade long struggle ended with a referendum in May 1967, which changed the sections of the Constitution that mentioned Aboriginal people. They would no longer be included in the Flora and Fauna Act, they would have rights to vote and be included in the census.

In answer to your question, Aboriginal people weren't even included in the Constitution. They were expressly included in the Flora and Fauna Act (Cth)."

The quote is unsourced, insufficient and inaccurate. It's inaccurate because the 1967 referendum did not give Aborigines the vote: this had already occurred years previously.

Even in 1901 electoral officers had the power to enrol Aborigines if they were considered to be integrated into the mainstream society. Aborigines had the right to vote in most of the states prior to WWII. In 1949 Aborigines in these states were also given the vote in Commonwealth elections as were all Aborigines who had served in the armed forces. In 1962 all Aborigines were able to vote in Commonwealth elections. In 1965 the last restriction, voting in Qld state elections, was also lifted.

As to your other assertion, I find it confusing. What do you mean Aborigines weren't "included" in the Constitution but, rather, in the Flora and Fauna Act? Given that the states had responsibility for Aboriginal affairs, what was the purpose of the Commonwealth mentioning Aborigines in the Flora and Fauna Act?

No-one seems to have any real information on this, so it's impossible to know the context even if the basic information proves to be true.

ah Bozo. You are so amusing.

I wasn't literally there in person. I was mentally supporting the cause. What right does the cartoonist have to "make people think of their religion"? Would you say the same to cartoonists who depict Jesus as a peadophile? Do you say "Hey Madonna..nice of you to dress up as Jesus in your lingerie...maybe the Christians will start to reflect on the true meaning of their religion now".

Grow up!

How does depicting Mohammed as a terrorist say anything about the position of women in Islam? Women in the west have only recently gained the rights they currently enjoy - this being a result of years of protests and fighting - and even then we still have a long way to go.

Islam is a religion. Spiritually women are more equal to men than in Christianity.

Culturally women suffer in some countries under Islamic Law - Shari'a. But what does this have to do with depicting Mohammed as a terrorist? Every religion differs from culture to culture. How can you begin to generalise them all into the one category because a couple of ill-informed journalists and leaders are telling you that is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

How did they do what was illustrated in the cartoons? Did they all suddenly become terrorists overnight? The cartoon is saying that all Muslims are terrorists and that their one and only prophet is a terrorist.

If a minority of this large community actually responds with violence are you going to tell me that this cartoonist's prophecy was realised?

To me it is on par with any anti-Jewish propaganda in Nazi Germany. If you condone such propaganda now then I'll agree with every point you've ever made (here's hoping you have double standards). and if you feel so strongly in favour of cartoons of this nature then surely this means you also condone the hatred expressed towards Jews which in turn led to widespread indifference towards their mass extermination.

If not then we can discuss like adults.

Mark, you beat me to the punch regarding the furphy of the "Flora and Fauna Act". The real situation was that some Aborigines already had the vote at state level in 1901 and that responsibility for Aboriginal affairs rested with the states. Details may be found here http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/when/history/ab_vote.htm Of course, having the right to vote and being able to exercise it are two different things and some states, particularly WA and QLD were loath to give Aborigines any rights at all.

The infamous WA 1944 Natives (Citizenship Rights) Act, better known as the Dog Act, granted "well-behaved" Aborigines rights including voting. However this status as an "honorary whitefella" could be retracted at any time, for misdemeanours such as fraternizing with other (non-citizen) family members. The grisly details may be viewed here http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/628/628p11.htm (a good summary even if your politics don't agree with GreenLeft) For a better understanding of the iniquities of WA Aboriginal policy I can recommend "Wanamurraganya: The Story of Jack McPhee", 1989, by Sally Morgan.

The appalling treatment of Aborigines by the various state Aboriginal "Protection" Boards is one of the sorriest chapters of 20th century Australian history. Revisionists are trying to whitewash the story. Don't believe them.

John

You are correct Aboriginals had the right to vote prior to Federalism. Federalism ended that. It's demise was contained in, if I recall correctly, the first piece of legislation enacted, commonly known as the White Australia Policy.
I am vague but can clearly remember reading of this...somewhere. Perhaps someone else knows of the details.

fleurette: Perhaps the cartoons were making the point that right from its outset, under Mohammed, Islam has always been a violent ideology. If we are to believe Christ existed as a historical figure, he certainly wasn't a conqueror, warrior or terrorist. Likewise with Buddha. Largely because they had no power, Christians took several centuries before they began their long road of barbarism. Islam, however, within a couple of centuries had already conquered most of the Iberian peninsula. The only thing checking this urge was people like Charles Martel, or later, Jan Sobieski. India had its own problems with Islam.

There's a difference between cartoons or any other propaganda and people actually committing crimes against one another. The Holocaust was the result of a lot more than propaganda, especially given that Germany was such an advanced and educated country at the time. No, it wasn't mere indifference, it was active participation and an active suspension of rationality.

Regardless of any of this though, the call for censorship on grounds of it causing offence or social disharmony is shaky at best. By your reasoning, the Reformation, Age of Reason, etc. would never have occurred.

J.S.Mill said something along the lines of, "we should welcome controversial ideas for if they are wrong, our own position has been strengthened; if they are right, we have learnt something." We have nothing to fear from ideas, even if they're stupid. This isn't the Dark Ages. Like I've already asked, why is/are Islam/Muslims so fragile/special it/that they can't cop the usual heat every other political or religious ideology does?

Shorbe,

I didn’t see fleurette calling for censorship, however nothing excuses the newspapers that published the cartoons for not using some restraint and sensitivity.

Given the anti-Muslim climate that was, and is, gathering steam all over the world (being ably whipped up by the media), the cartoons were quite rightly seen as a further provocation. And no doubt there were political calculations.

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which first published the cartoons, supports the right-wing government that includes in its coalition a rabidly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim party.

In the 1920s and 1930s, Jyllands-Posten supported Italian fascism and the German Nazi dictatorship. In 1933, it argued for the introduction of a dictatorship in Denmark.

Denunciation of the cartoons as a political provocation doesn’t imply support for censorship—no more than would the denunciation of racist anti-African-American cartoons or anti-Semitic caricatures.

shorbe,

I was with you to the last paragraph. Why? Because that such a depiction of the Muhammed idn Abdullah is considered blasphemy. Remember, please, we are dealing with a theistic society.

The creation of Islam was to unite the Arabs because of pressure (political and religious) from Sassid Persia and Byzantium. The Kabah was used as a centre of focus, because from antiquity, it had been a site of worship. The Nabatean deity, lived there, but moved out, before, Al-lah took-up shop.

Although, Germany was very advanced technologically, like Japan, its societal structured lagged way behind. Simply put, German people were accustomed to following orders. (Read Veblen, just after WWI) Moreover, Germany could not free itself from WWI reparations (Read HBR from the 1930s). These are some reasons -not excuses- for the NAZIs gaining power.

"I didn’t see fleurette calling for censorship, however nothing excuses the newspapers that published the cartoons for not using some restraint and sensitivity."

tao: Newspapers aren't meant to exercise restraint or sensitivity. Once you open that can of worms, just what can they publish without offending someone? What, are we Singapore now? I'm not saying there weren't political provocations involved here, but the point to freedom of speech is that we take the good with the bad, and then debate it. I can see how Christians might be pretty annoyed with society and the media generally running them down at every opportunity, but frankly, that's too bad for them also. It's too bad for any individual or group to take offence at freedom of speech.

As for not seeing fleurette calling for censorship (Tuesday, 12 September 2006 7:40:34 PM):

"Frankly as much as I advocate "freedom of speech" I'm pretty sure that the cartoon and it's anti Islamic sentiments further defy the conventions set out in the Declaration of Human Rights. So much in fact that it outweighs the "Freedom of speech" card. So pull another one."

Oliver: I understand the reasons for Nazi Germany's rise to power, but the "I was just following orders" argument doesn't wash.

Also, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by your first paragraph. Could you please restate it and/or elaborate? I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying, and space restraints prevent me from offering my different interpretations.

Shorbe,

"why is/are Islam/Muslims so fragile/special it/that they can't cop the usual heat every other political or religious ideology does?"

I was simply refering to your last paragraph. My reply: Islamic theocracy. Other religions have moved a long a bit or are no longer as strongly fused with their respective States. It is hard for these folk (Muslims) to cop it sweet.

As may know Veblen, felt that rapid development from a feudal society to an advanced society was a formula for trouble. Why do you think the Germans stood for Hilter?

- Simply, because Hilter had the guns?

If so, as is portrayed in a movie, why, did half the safes in NAZI Germany have Hiltler's birthday, as a combination? (I don't actually believe that proportion, but think you undrestand the point.

Shorbe,

I still don’t see how fleurette is calling for censorship.

You say you’re not ruling out political provocation – very reasonable of you – but what if it was?

If it was a case of anti-Islamic bigots, with the power of a daily newspaper, attempting to portray Muslims and their prophet as terrorists while we’re in the midst of a “war on terror” then they were actively inciting prejudice, hatred and fear amongst the community.

This is really no different to what happened in Germany. As you say, there were other reasons for WWII and the holocaust, but newspapers decrying Jews at every opportunity would certainly have had an affect on public consciousness.

You said “it was active participation and an active suspension of rationality”. Obviously then, the newspapers actively participated in justifying the Nazi’s suspension of rationality, and encouraging the public to suspend rationality.

Are you suggesting that newspapers, which are in a position of shaping what the public thinks, have no responsibility for the consequences of what they print? Would it be acceptable to have rabidly racist or sexist propaganda all over our newspapers? Ought we not complain about it, or is it just too bad?

You say newspapers are not meant to show restraint or sensitivity. Well they do every day. Why don’t they show pictures of dead Iraqi children on the front page every day with a headline shouting the daily and accumulative death toll caused by our invasion? How long would the public stomach our involvement? And I bet German newspapers didn’t trumpet the fact that they were shipping Jews off to concentration camps to be gassed.

Of course people, and newspapers, have the right to “freedom of speech”. But we also have the right to call it what it is – vicious hate-inciting propaganda – aimed not just at Muslims – but all of us, with the intention of dividing us and pitting us against each other in an effort to divert us from the real issue which is the extreme and obscene polarization of wealth in society.

BOAZ sends Fleurette off to a re-education camp :)

You said:

"Where was I when the Muslims protested against their entire religion and world community being portrayed as terrorists? I was out there protesting with them. Because I don't see it as being just a cartoon or an example of expressing freedom of speech. I see it as being a dangerous form of propaganda that will filtrate the minds of the ignorant"

"Entire Religion and community" ? Nope..it was just their socalled prophet from memory.

"Terrorists" ? umm... perhaps you should look more closely at the life of Mohammed. Just out of curiosity, how DO you regard a man who indulged in:
-Mutilation of living prisoners.
-Torture to discover a town treasury
-Sexual adventurer including underage girls
-Raider of Caravans ...(usually this is called 'banditry/piracy etc'.
-Arranging a Mafia style 'hit' on a poet.
-Wrote that 'captive slave girls' can be used for sexual gratification.

With all this, (jjjdrmot@yahoo.com.au for sources/documentation) does it surprise you that they are sensitive about the truth being told ?
Or..that the regular response from 'passionate' Muslims is to call for the death of critics of Mohamed ?

In this case..the 'Truth' HURTS... because it shows the foundation of the religion to be evil. Unless of course you wish to 're-habilitate' Pablo Escobar and call him a great bloke because he built Soccer fields, Hospitals, Schools and Churches...... ? Do any of those things change his basic character ? Mohamed got his money by stealing from others, Pablo from drugs. 6 of one, Half dozen of the other as far as I can see.

The 'Propoganda' and 'Ignorance' are all on the Islamic side.

Shorbe,

"I tend to think that what makes any belief system or culture attractive and successful is ultimately what limits it or even leads to its own downfall. Our own set of ideas in the west is no exception." - Shorbe, early post

I think Quigley (civilizationalist)would have agreed with your statement. Perhaps adding that when power and wealth come together, there is a tendency to maintain the status quo. When the ecological niche shifts the civilization becomes less viable but wont change, because those in charge have all-the-power. Of course, this only part of the picture, as aforesaid in intertwined with economic and military power.

Boaz,

What are your references for this dark side of Muhammad?

I see parellels between Muhammad and Moses. Both used religion as unifiers leveraging the existing henotheism and chanelling the tribes towards monotheism.

In its first century, Islam borrowed some ritual practices from the Jews. Thrice a day prayer, for instance.

Islam, over the centuries, like Christianity, has had its schicisms. Early Isalm is much better documented that first century Christianity. Early Islam accepted the other prophets (Abraham, Moses, Jesus), as other peoples' relevation to the existence of (one) divinity.

What TV calls "fundamentalist" is probably more like some eighth-century Islamic sects than sixth century Islam.

Moreover, early Islamic scholars struggled a bit to establish Creeds, as Muhammad appears to have been less educated the Jesus (Hellenised Jew.

fleurette,

The answer for your post is " WHO CARES? "

oh fleurette, you are so confusing. You are mentally supporting "Killing" and "Beheading" protests whatever the cause be! Are you so ignorant of the position of woman in Islam or the brutal murders by mohammed?

See fleurette, you've are so ignorant of mohammed's history. please buy a koran and read how he killed others, took women as wives, even a 6 year/9 year old girl. To say that he is the perfect man for humans makes me to smile at the hypocrisy.

"The cartoon is saying that all Muslims are terrorists and that their one and only prophet is a terrorist." .. No, it's saying most of the muslim's violent nature is from mohammed. They think to kill is to follow their leader and it's not a wrong thing to kill as koran says so.

You wrote: "Would you say the same to cartoonists who depict Jesus as a peadophile? Do you say "Hey Madonna..nice of you to dress up as Jesus in your lingerie...maybe the Christians will start to reflect on the true meaning of their religion now".

flu, Some westerners, atheists did many blasphemous paintings like P*SS CHRIST, depicting Jesus as naked doing sex with children (to illustrate Catholic priests) Turkey's tourism ministry shows couples dancing on Jesus pictures, madonna hanging on a cross etc.. They are considered blasphemous by christians.. Are they saying : "Behead those who insult Christ. "

We had Holocaust cartoon competition in Iran and a Danish paper reprinting those cartoons.

What are the Jews doing? They're burning Danish embassies and doing protests calling for murder of the cartoonists.. Are they?

We got South Park TV Cartoons depicting Virgin mary menstruating..

Two days back, the person I hate (Papa Benedict) said:

" In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God," he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348456.stm

What's the reaction from the followers of ROP? They killed and injured themselves in the protests over pope's comments? It's funny and it's sick.

Are you there with them spiritually? Call a SPADE 'SPADE'

If your faith is so strong, others comments make no sense to you. I dont think if their/any god is so powerful, he wont need others to defend him. Dont you think so?

Clarification:

"What TV calls 'fundamentalist' is probably more like some eighth-century Islamic sects than sixth century Islam.

Islam started in the early seventh century (c.620), but some environmental roots go back to c. 570.

Oliver: I mainly agree with you. Are you saying Germany went from a feudal society to advanced rapidly? That's untrue. Many of the historical changes of the past 500 years occurred in or around what is modern Germany. The Reformation is a prime example. Russia and Japan are examples of rapid advances, but not Germany.

tao: Are you being facetious? From that quote, "So much in fact that it outweighs the "Freedom of speech" card."

I don't buy the line of newspapers having an effect in Nazi Germany because ultimately, people have to take responsibility for their own actions. The fact that the media may be ratbags is no excuse for people to absolve themselves of responsibility.

The way to complain about this is by not buying the newspaper and by naming and shaming the newspapers involved, not calling for legislation. Are you forgetting that much of where we are today is because people bucked the trend and said or printed things that were considered offensive or morally degenerate? We'd still be living in Victorian England or the 1950s otherwise. In this respect, I'm as opposed to censorship from the PC left as from the Christian conservative right.

Having said that, however, I keep getting back to one of my original points: why is it that Islam, which has been militaristic from day one, is never called on its bs? Everyone takes the piss out of Tom Cruise for being a Scientologist, why not the same for any Muslim? Why is it that the left (whom Islam sees as morally degenerate and the enemy) are so blind to this? The west still has a long way to go, but what, do you think there's a Tehran or Riyadh Gay Mardi Gras? Gimme a break.

As for the way the media portrays Iraq or any other conflict, I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm as opposed to the current round of military adventurism and empire building as you are, I'm sure, and I'm disgusted by the way the media has been such a cheersquad for this absurd War on Terror.

shorbe,

You make a good point about Germany's contribution to the Reformation. Likewise, on The Continent more generally, Academies started sprouting up and the (German) printing press allowed information to be effectiently distributed. Even in the late nineteen century German engineering was outstripping the US and Britain in many areas, notably automibles.

You mention "feudal" society which suggests you have read Veblen.

I think one would need to consider society-at-large not merely an elite, however. In this Redding notes that Western countries that had been occupied for more than a millinium by Rome show different patterns than countries so occupied. This pattern, carried forward to the success of the colonies.

Feudalism arose from the break down of the Western Roman Empire, where the British Isle and The Contintent took different paths. The former, being vis~a~vis the latter, liberal.

Interestingly, going back a century (or less) Russia and Japan, would import technologies, whereas Germany would inovate technologies. This supports your argument.

Provisionally, I am open to investigating/accepting your proposition. Just the same, historically, I wonder if the Germanic population en-mass, displayed the feudal or counter-feudal characteristics

Oliver: I'm not familiar with Veblen, sorry. I just know that for western Europe, feudalism ended (more or less) with the end of the Middle Ages (due to a whole range of factors, eg. urbanisation, monnetary currency, kings trying to weaken the power of nobility and the move to mercenary or standing armies, etc.), whereas in other places (Russia and Japan) it didn't end until the late 19th century.

Which countries were occupied by Rome for more than a millenium? The Roman Empire collapsed in 453 CE, which would mean any country occupied for more than a millenium would have had to have been conquered before 547 BCE, but Rome didn't even conquer the Italian peninsula until about three centuries after this.

I don't know that feudalism in its regional variations or different start or end dates had a lot to do with western European colonisation of the new world, which occurred (in earnest) about three centuries later, and indeed, more than a millenium after the fall of Rome. I think there were a whole different set of factors involved. Look, you could argue that the Anglo-Saxon tribes of Britain (which, according to Germanic customs, were more egalitarian than other Europeans) led to the Magna Carta, which led to Parliament, which led to a more liberal society, which provided a fertile intellectual ground for the Age of Reason, which led to the Founding Fathers of the U.S., but I think that would be a gross over-simplification. There were a whole lot of factors (many environmental) affecting the success of the different colonial nations, and these often waxed and waned. The period between the discovery of the New World and the French Revolution was incredibly complex, both in Europe and elsewhere.

Mr Donnelly, as a well-known advocate of higher standards in education, could you please spell "cultural imperialist"?

You also failed to mention such important concepts as "the white man's burden" and the "Yellow Peril".

But you well and truly lost your way when you stooped to use that nebulous, meaningless and populist term "un-Australian".

D-

Please try harder.

Stickman67,

Your post reads as, Argumentum ad Hominem. Perhaps, this was unintended. If you have case you should be more articulate your view.

Shorbe,

I will need to search for the Redding paper - if I still have it? His basic idea was based on Rome AND Roman Catholicism having enduring effects into History. Herein, England and her colonies have been more successful than say Spain and her colonies. Redding is a specialist in Sinic Economics, it will have been an aside remark. His measure of one thousand years could have included the Eastern Empire, which existed centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476).

Regarding the Vikings, some have suggested that they were not primarily familial, because the warriors were off fighting, while the women stayed at home. This having carry-over effects.

Agree. Very complex, indeed.

Boaz,

Any comment on my earlier post?

Obojo You show a weak understanding of Islam.

The pope is complying with the West because the Catholic Church is losing the West. We have become educated. We are demanding things: women to become priests, contraception, homosexuality, reading fiction about Da Vinci and demanding answers that the Church cannot adequately answer.

Why would he pass up an opportunity to jump onto the bandwagon and condemn a religion and its followers?

Afterall Pope-what's-his-face did it during the Holocaust only his actions were less excusable. He said nothing and did nothing and was ultimately held responsible in the end.

The pope is encouraged to go with the flow. If everyone says no to invading Iraq who is he to say otherwise? A pretty dodgy example to prove a point.

How do we know the reaction from the Muslim world? From what the media reports. Ha. Remember when Fox News recycled footage of the Palestinians celebrating to show the reaction to 9/11?? Forgive me for being sceptical but until I see legitimate proof that the entire Islamic world is up in arms then I'll respond.

I have studied Women in Islam and can challenge your narrow minded view any day.

Women in Islam ARE spiritually equal to men.
Women in Christinaity ARE NOT spiritually equal.

Women in Islamic societies are facing cultural difficulties. But they are not as unequal as the West will have you believe.

"Mohammed took women as wives" he is so evil. OOHHH because no one does that these days. They don't take wives they just sleep around impregnating many women and then paying for child care. You're so naive it's not funny.

I don't care for the religious sensitivity that some Muslims and Christians may have at seeing their prophets/Gods defamed. I am protesting at the politcal significance of the cartoon.

And as others have said - I do not call for censorship of the cartoon I call for adequate critique of the cartoon.

Finally terrorism is a political movement. It is not linked to Islam and the reasons are purely political.

Shorbe,

No-one has said anything about legislation or official censorship but you.

Condemning newspapers for printing inciteful material is not absolving people of responsibility for their actions. However, you seem to want to absolve newspapers for responsibility for what they print.

The point is that if people believe what newspapers or political leaders say i.e. that a problem exists, then they are more likely to sanction whatever measures are put forward to deal with the problem which they are being told exists. A case in point is the Iraq war.

No-one is suggesting that the foundations of Islam should not be criticized (quite frankly all religions should be debunked), but it should be done in a rational and reasoned manner. If the real intention is to genuinely criticize, then using inflammatory material is not the way to do it, it only makes matters worse.

Further, criticizing Islam in and of itself will not address the causes of terrorism. Fundamentalist Islamic terrorism is a symptom and outcome of more complex underlying social, economic and political problems facing the world. But you don’t see newspapers dealing seriously with those issues, and in fact newspapers actively divert people from the real issues.

It is naïve to think that newspapers are innocently engaging in freedom of speech, or that they make innocent mistakes. Newspaper owners, and their editors, are acutely aware of the political lay of the land and tailor their newspapers in order to protect and promote their own interests. I can’t remember who said it, but I heard it once said that the difference between Soviet propaganda and Western propaganda is that at least Soviet people knew they were being fed propaganda. Western people think they are being told the “truth”.

Quite frankly, it seems to me to be incumbent upon people who believe in democratic rights to condemn and denounce the use of a daily newspaper to incite prejudice and give justification for the dismantling and trammeling of the democratic rights of all of us, Muslim or otherwise, Danish or Australian. Anything else would be absolving oneself of one’s responsibilities.

hi flu,

who cares what pope says. Pope is a coward and a hypocrite. But, on readiny your post, i can see that you are worse than pope.

" We are demanding things: women to become priests, contraception, homosexuality, reading fiction about Da Vinci and demanding answers that the Church cannot adequately answer. "

Try the same in islam flu and see the reaction. your head lies separated from your body.

" How do we know the reaction from the Muslim world? From what the media reports."

This statement has blown me up! Try al-jazeera for allah's sake.

"I have studied Women in Islam and can challenge your narrow minded view any day.

Women in Islam ARE spiritually equal to men. "

I can't stop laughing at this statement.

"Mohammed took women as wives" he is so evil. OOHHH because no one does that these days. They don't take wives they just sleep around impregnating many women and then paying for child care "

No, he didn't just took 14 wives but he did paedophilia & slavery. Do you mean all the non-muslim australian guys sleep around..?

A thousand pardons, Oliver.

I was merely indulging in the lowest form of wit. Sadly, however, I've neither the time nor the inclination for stewing over minutiae. Straight for the cheap shot for me!

Perhaps if people are offended by argumentum ad hominem, they should subscribe to the time-honoured practice of illegitimi non carborundum.

And them as want to go out in public using terms like "un-Australian" should be prepared for flak, in my humble opinion.

;-)

Hi flu,

Hope you can see the following photos with your naked eyes:

Islam will conquer Rome, Pope go to Hell
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6193/3077/320/DSCF0035.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6193/3077/320/DSCF0032.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6193/3077/320/DSCF0036.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6193/3077/320/DSCF0031.jpg etc..

....

http://catholiclondoner.blogspot.com/2006/09/very-rushed-post.html

flu, in you opinion, are those photos genuine or fake

[Deleted because poster tried to circumvent the word limit with hyphens.]Deeply ingrained liberal rights - reflected in our institutions and our culture - are what enable us to come together in a forum, and speak our minds without fear of repression. It certainly was not always this way, and unless we value what we have achieved in this sense, it might not always remain this way either.

That said, it is an aspect of Enlightenment tradition that there ought be free, open and critical inquiry: if necessary 'ruthless criticism of all that exists'. Those very liberal ideals that help provide the rationale for the liberties so many take for granted: need to be held up to the same scrutiny as any other idea; as do our institutions and the policies of our governments. The problem with the Conservative approach to rights and traditions is that it is 'uncritically celebratory'. Pluralism, including the inclusion of the critical perspectives Donnelly seems to find offensive, is the stuff of a free and open public sphere: a crucial precondition for the exercise of human reason.

That said, we ought subject ourselves to the same searching criticism that we subject the Islamic world to. Where were our liberal ideals during the Cold War; when about 300,000 were slaughtered in Gautemala? Where were our liberal ideals when Reagan mined the ports in Nicargua, and when US client regimes in Central and South America slaughtered tens of thousands? Where were our liberal ideals when the PKK - Indonesian Communist Party - was liquidated with the support of the CIA: with over half a million deaths? It is simply not good enough to say: 'Do as I say but not as I do'. And it is for the sake of representing these perspectives that would otherwise be marginalised that we ought remember: the public sphere is not simply a vehicle for celebrating liberal democracy: it is the vehicle through which liberal democracy must criticise itelf. And it is in this sense that we so badly fail.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST........

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST........

Finally, as I will argue in an article I hope to be published here soon, our liberal democratic inheritance has nothing to say with regards to 'social rights'. What about the right to a quality public education, quality free health care and aged care, central and accessible civic space for free use by citizens? At least before the collapse of Communism - whatever Communism's faults - it exerted pressure which forced the pace of social democratic reform around the world... Nowadays - there is a worldwide neoliberal ideological offensive which has as its aim the liquidation of those social rights won during the post-war era.

Donnelly is right to view the system of industrial arbitration and centralised wage fixation as being one of the core achievements of Australia's 'social liberal settlement' - but the core aspects of this settlement are now being dismantled by the Conservatives; and meanwhile our liberal rights are at threat because of the use of the spectre of terrorism being used as a rationale for retrospective laws, sedition legislation and so on.

We should recognise our liberal traditions and values, and the role these play in upholding all our rights: but unless we our willing to subject ourselves to the same searching criticism we subject others to - alas - it will all be in vain.

Tristan

tao: It's odd to say something outweighs the right to free speech and not mean censorship, and what would the reference to conventions in the Declaration of Human Rights mean? Unless we're going to say that the U.N. came up with such a convention with no intention of backing it up (which would seem rather pointless of them), then appealing to it would have to imply some sort of action (should) be taken.

Regarding the cartoons, firstly, they were mild compared to the sort of skewering cartoonists give everyone else. The ratbag element who over-reacted don't need a reason, they just need an excuse. Besides that, as I keep saying, if we started getting upset every time the media potentially offended someone, we'd still be living in the Victorian age. The point is that Christians, politicians, sportsmen, whomever, all put up with it and live with it. Once again, why are so many Muslims so bloody fragile? Why can't they just turn off the channel or boycott newspapers like everyone else, and make that well known to those who advertise in such media?

The point is that if people believe what newspapers or political leaders say in this day and age then they're damned naive! How do we get around that though? Where's the grain of salt?

Who is to say that modern cartooning isn't a refined critical art? I suggest that the reason those cartoons were so "inciteful" is because they got right to the heart of a matter and forced those who didn't want to be honest with themselves to engage in self-reflection.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the media have agendas. Innocence or guilt is irrelevant to free speech.

It's not incumbent upon me or anyone else to say anything about media stances any more than it is to say anything about any other topic. If we choose to do so, that's our choice.

Finally, since you're so hung up about inciting prejudice, I'll expect you to vehemently denounce anyone (including Muslims) who slags off Christians, Scientologists or even the Collingwood Football Club.

shorbe, while I agree with you on the issue of censorship, I think there is also a need for care that we don't put freedom of speech ahead of tolerance and the avoidance of needless incitement on very inflammatory issues.

We are all for rights and freedoms in today's societies, but we tend to think of them as infinite and extending only from the centre that is our self. (Is that another way of saying we've become self-centred? I'd say yes.)

But one individual's rights end precisely where they infringe another individual's.

The corollary of a right is a responsibility. We are all well aware of our rights. Do we have the same passion about our responsibilities?

As for the cartoons, I'm extremely ambivalent. First, was their impact in inflaming passionate anger among Muslims worth it? The potential implications of doing so are a little more serious than slagging off the Collingwood FC (which, frankly, deserves it ;-) ). Second, there is sometimes a fine line, or even no line at all, between art and propaganda:

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/display/ShowPicture?moduleId=127130&pictureId=121241&galleryId=10607

We need to give very, very serious consideration about how we conduct relations with the Muslim world. Needless needling is neither necessary nor wise.

Freedom of speech? I'm all for it. But it must be tempered with wisdom and responsibility.

Shorbe,

(A)"Once again, why are so many Muslims so bloody fragile?" - Shorbe

1. Religiosity. The State is bellow God and the Prophets.
2. Tribalism and a vendetta mindset
3. The minorities are large minorities. Moreover, the Islamic
majority will
identify will fellow believed before, we, infedels.
4. A sense of injustice in relation to Israel
5. A long memory [Crusades]
6. Manic and opportunistic leaders

(B)H.G. Wells (He was a historian) notes a remergence of the Roman Empire under Charlemagne. Roman had fallen and the Byzantine empire was in decay:

"The Roman Church, clinging tenaciously to its position of the title "potntifex maximus", had long abandoned its appointed task of achievig the Kingdom of Heaven. It was preoccupied with the revival of ascendancy on Earth. which in conceived as its inheritance. It had become a political body... It clung to the tradition of the Roman Empire and to the idea that it was the natural method of European unity." - Wells

(c) If you are a mad dictator and want to unify the Arabs; what do you do? Use religion to unify the Arabs against an identififiable rivival, with a bad track record.

Oliver: You're right. My question was somewhat rhetorical.

stickman: I understand what you're saying, but I think the problem is not one of incitement, it's one of Islam being largely incompatible with our liberal traditions. Other groups take it on the chin and understand that's part and parcel of living in a free society, even if they don't like what's being said. However, there's a vocal group (minority or majority, I don't know) of Muslims, both here and abroad, who take any criticism of their religion as reason to start breaking things.

I don't see that there's a responsibility not to offend because that defeats the whole point of freedom of speech. As such, I don't think we should be trying to appease the Muslim world over what we do or don't say. If they don't like what is said in the west, they can always do what anyone else does: stop reading or watching the media. Frankly, I find the notion of any organised religion offensive and oppressive, as little more than power-mongering and brain washing, but I'm still not calling for any of them to tone it down or keep quiet.

As to our broader relations with the Muslim world, I think we need to do two things. Firstly, yes, we need to stay out of their countries because it lowers our own ethical standing and it costs us too much. Secondly, we need to get off oil. Without oil, most of the Islamic world would be ignored for the anachronism that it is.

I think this is a large part of the problem: whilst other parts of the world (eg. China, India, Brazil) are steaming ahead by embracing the modern world, the Islamic world is fast having to wake up to the fact that its problems and backwardness have much more to do with its backward mindset and unwillingness to reform its world view than foreign interference or persecution. If the world is passing them by, they only have themselves to blame. The interesting thing will be how long the collective self-delusion and denial lasts.

Shorbe,

I find your comments quite pertinent.

I believe there are a great core of moderate Muslims in existence and will only remain collectively moderate under a strongly run, secular state – such as provided, for example, by the Australian constitution or as enshrined in the American Bill of Rights. Islamists (as opposed to the moderates) are hijacking any sensible debate or reason and Islam itself through ulterior motive. It is important to recognise a core peaceful aspect resident within Islam but to also realise, singularly, its deficiency in containing a deep-seated cultural malaise our civilisation barely contains nor recognises.

“Just as Gutenberg’s invention marked the first mass media revolution in the West, the Internet and satellite TV are now doing the same thing in the Islamic world. However, the outcome may be very different, and the parallels between the Protestant Reformation and what is happening in the Islamic world now shouldn’t be pushed too far…The turmoil in he Islamic world now affects more or less the entire world, and many of the critics are based in rival civilizations. And last, but not least: The religions are entirely different. Christianity was reformable, whereas Islam probably isn’t.” - Nick Cohen, Observer, March 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329426862-103390,00.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010828.php

Shorbe: Excuse me for not recognizing your question was rhetorical. How could I have missed it? ;-) My take was that you were looking for something profound, when the answers was merely complex (but visible.

Stickman: commondo appipio venia :-)

Relda, Would like to believe you are correct, but Arab and Western socialisation processes do differ. The former is theistic and extended familial (religious clans) and the latter cross-familial, since at least the tenth century.

The question is, "who will win the moderate Muslims"? Other [radical] Muslims or the Western democracies. Unless the Moderates have been significantly acculturated towards the West, the radical Muslims are a real threat.

Oliver,

Socialisation throughout the ages has occurred traditionally through family. Familial relations, rooted in a tribal setting, have been the cornerstone of most ancient societies. Religion and certainly Theism has helped bind traditional families and society (often in a severely patriarchal manner). Modern society continues to value family. "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State". (Declaration of Human Rights)

Our confusion within modernity lies in the defining of family and its inherent values. The implication of “family” is that it nurtures our young to extend our values and culture through time – so we often jealously guard the socialization of our children. Conflict between value systems tend to become exacerbated as children of migrants become more immersed in the host culture and only experience their parental culture at home.

Children often form a “hybrid” identity between the family culture and the new society.

The paradox of western culture and the freedom offered through ‘easy’ divorce and family separation is understandably feared by traditional family/tribal orientated cultures.

The conflict is real - our democratic and secular ‘state’ requires we submit our children to its process and its values. It is important we strengthen our families (our nurturing of children) as a part of our pluralism. The State must not only represent our values, but neither must it allow groups within our society to circumvent this process.

relda: I'm strongly opposed to a strong state of any kind, secular or theocratic. However, that's a whole other debate in itself.

Likewise, I don't believe we should submit our children to its process and values. In short, I would say that one of the reasons countries like Australia function so well is because the state (comparatively) meddles very little in our lives. We are beginning to see the gaping cracks in the European project, for instance. Personally, I believe that within my lifetime, we'll be marvelling at how autocratic, xenophobic and reactionary Europe will have become (yet for that continent, it would only be a return to business as usual) and be scratching our heads at how moderate and tolerant the English speaking world seems by comparison. I believe all of that is an inevitability though since there's far less room for abuse if power is dissipated (although the U.S. long ago abused such notions -- 1794 and 1861-1865 spring instantly to mind). Regarding the reach of power in this country, I think things are changing, and not for the better.

I think the issue of cultural conflict between "traditional" (ie. Anglo-Saxon) values and those of more recent migrant groups will resolve itself organically in this country, as it should. I think going down the path of a values debate (and somehow trying to enshrine them at some level) is a mistake. People may, of course, bring new and interesting things to our culture. Ultimately though, if after a few generations, our culture has failed to assimilate others into it by its own attractiveness and virtue, then that seems like a failing on the part of our culture, and I don't think that's something the state could remedy even if it wanted to and had benign intentions.

I'm a big fan of much of the western tradition, but I think one of its biggest failings is in trying to push that so hard on others. It's self-defeating to the supposed virtue and self-evidence of such values.

Shorbe,
I’m suggesting a strong democracy and its constitution need representation via a strong state and rule of law - as opposed to the problems created in many less developed nations by "weak states," which lack the power to enforce a constitution or bill of rights and to control, regulate or tax the economy. A strong state is also able to withstand the political and social challenges from non-state actors. The ideal world we might all seek or hope for might be one without government or state control – it is however utopian, existing only in our dreams.

Currently, we are generally compliant to the rule of Australian law and its statutes (albeit we do not always agree with it); we have willingly observed the requirement and the need to send our children to a state sponsored or state endorsed education system, despite the imperfections and current political correctness creeping into the structure. A strong state in a democratic and pluralistic country cannot by definition be overbearing, unjust or mean - unless its citizens (the true 'sponsors' of the state), through apathy, allow it

Relda and Shorbe,

I think you need to reconcile the cohesiveness of the State with the level of intervention by the State regarding the locus of control. A strong, effective and democratic state needs a clear ethic and flexible institutions. On the other hand, such a State will have decentralised power and will avoid intervention into personal lives. The people are free to pursue happiness, within reasonable constraints. Its strength does not sit with its ability to impose its will, rather, to some extent codification is incidental, because the ambience is the will of the (self) governed. Ideally, politicians, unions and corporations are moderated. Power is diffuse.

Relda,

Much of what you say about familialism rings true.

A larger model would see families operating within a culture. That culture is embedded in an ecology. The individual is provided values by the family, usually in concord with the society-at-large. Typically, this situation works well for the dominant societal group. Minority groups have a harder time.

In Western society, our culture permits latitudes and diversity, but, a horizontal society also expects engagement and participation by its members. It rejects inclusiveness and non-participation. Perhaps, this is why [tribal] indigenous clans and other inclusive societies run against the grain of democratic society, much to their own disadvantage.

Herein, not all cross-cultures are created equal.

Thus, multiculturalism needs to be segmented for fit, and might serve not the integration of, just any combination of peoples.

If familial and ethnics-based value systems are self-located, and not broadly situated in a democratic society, these groups can appear and may even be alien to the host culture. It will reject them or at least be perplexed about how to manage relationships.

"After I submitted the article on values and what we hold in common, Steve Irwin died. One only needs to look at the intensity and widespread nature of the public response to his life and death to realise that the traditional bushman ideal of the Australian character is alive and well. " -- Kevin D. (first Post)

Interesting, isn't it? Given Oz is one of the most urbanised and technologically advanced countries on then planet. It also amuses me, that Oz and US film producers seem to make an effort to find thirty-year cars for Australian-based movies.

Hi Oliver,

What movies are you watching?

Kevin D

Hello Kevin,

I'm in Hong Kong and have just come back the computer, because I can't find a good movie.

O.

Kevin,

Did you ever see the Australian JAG episodes (My wife loves JAG)? Well, twenty year old mini-minors pop here and there and in one scene if I recall, three minis. [Britsh Leyland had to quit Australia] In the Commodore era, Kingswoods abound, especially, if set on a country town. But even before then, there were FJs went the Kingwoods were new.

Relda,

Any comment on the suggestion of a larger model, as above? Herein, familialism is just one factor. Of course, most societies have a big dose of "family" in the mixiture. Western society seems capable of going beyond [not replacing the family]. The vikings, celts and romans (they had pantheons)seem to have integrated well across families. Albeit, in ancient times patrimonalism was present. In eleventh century Britain (Briton?), village life went beyond the family and peoples were cooperatively and socially engaged. Much more so than with Middle Eastern tribalism and Far Eastern familialism.

Oliver,
Something the UN seems to have managed is its consensus on family:
· The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state;
· Various concepts of the family exist in different social, cultural, and political systems, but it is recognized that families are basic to the social structure and development of all societies. It is also recognized that families around the world exhibit many common problems.
· Gender equality, women's equal participation in employment, and shared parental responsibilities are essential elements of modern family policy;
· Families are the fullest reflection, at the grass-roots level, of the strengths and weaknesses of the social and developmental environment; and
· Families, as basic units of social life, are major agents of sustainable development at all levels of society, and their contribution is crucial for its success.

I might add, there appears an intrinsic human need at inception for nurture. The first few years are pivotal as to the shape of our remaining lives – it would seem, our personality, outlook and value structure are near set in concrete by the age of around seven. Disentangle the family and you generally make a huge mess of society – poorly developed (insecure) adults result – with expensive, expansive and often ineffective social programs treating a symptom.

Our larger model? Guess there can’t be one unless we get the family (fundamental group) right – but yeah! The family is only a means to an end.

Hi Relda,

Thank you for your considered reply. I will print it off and think it through.

With regard to the larger model, I am influenced by Harry Triandis... ecology > culture > personality. Herein, the family as well as the individual interfaces many conditioning influences.

Of course the family is pivotal. In this farame, it amuses me how Lee Yuan Yew [I have lived in Asia for eight years] feels Westerners lack family values - I don't think so. We might be less patrimonial, but the family remains important. Family in this context, though, I feel is different to familialism (S. Gordon Redding, Robert Silin.

Moreover, I suspect that pioneers like Margaret Mead would have seen the extended group directly influencing the family, and via another route reinforcing the family's values, when it comes to the individual, born tabla rosa.

Kevin,

If you are interested in Western civilization vis~a~vis other civilizations, Caroll Quigley (c. 1960s)is an intersting author. Huntington of "Clash of Civilizations" fame cites him extensively. Quigley's work is more studied than Huntingon's contribution. [Different audience, I guess.]

Kevin,

Almost made 100. But I think attention wanes when there is a new kid (article) on the block. :-)

O.

Hi Oliver,

Thanks very much for that. In relation to Western Civilisation, the PM gave a very strong speech at the Quadrant Dinner last night. It's covered in today's OZ.

Best wishes,
Kevin

Hello Kevin,

Thanks. I am offshore, but will look-up the PM's speech.

Take care.

Kind regards,

O.