Australian Race Riots

[Dialectic]

This reporer's commentary is a very good example of second-tier or vision-logic reasoning, and how it can be perverted, misinterpreted, and attacked by "all" sides, namely first-tier notions of liberalism, conservatism, ethnocentrism, and pluralism.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17568924%255E7583,00.html

Cut & paste: Forget a race war, it's a clash of cultures in Sydney

December 15, 2005
Journalist blogger Andrew West questions multiculturalism on The Sydney Morning Herald website on Tuesday

AUSTRALIA does not have a race relations problem. We have a clash of cultures and that's a big difference ñ and maybe the problem is certain forms of Islam. Of course, the marauding boneheads who rampaged through Cronulla on Sunday don't make this distinction. If they did, perhaps they would realise that when they screech "Lebs out" they are also referring to the majority of Lebanese Australians who are Maronite Christians, in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

The problem is not the blood that runs through people's veins. Any form of discrimination based on race or ethnicity ñ based on the colour of one's skin or hair or eyes ñ is inherently immoral, illogical and evil. But culture and religion are behavioural. They involve values. People can be born into a particular culture or religion, but sooner or later they reach an age of reason where they can embrace or reject their precepts. And if people freely embrace a culture that is antithetical to the prevailing social mores ñ in our case, I would hope, liberal, enlightenment values ñ then we are entitled to judge, object, censure and even discriminate.

Which brings us to this extremely prickly issue of radical Islam . . . Some strains of Islam do, indeed, sanction attitudes and behaviour that are not simply patriarchal but repressive. When groups of young Muslim men stalk the beaches of Sydney making sexually threatening comments against women in bathing costumes, as they indisputably do; and when they believe they act with the license of a sheik who claims that such women are responsible for their own sexual violation, is their religion, at least in part, to blame?

I do not embrace multiculturalism, as such, because I do not believe all cultures are compatible with non-discriminatory liberalism. I prefer a multi-ethnic, non-racial society, which has at its core a canon of values that include racial and gender equality. I admit to feeling a little uneasy at the sight of a Muslim woman shrouded not simply in a headscarf but a face-concealing, head-to-toe chador, and wonder just how much choice she has had in deciding her lifestyle . . . I cannot celebrate such culture in the way that I celebrate Italian National Day in Leichhardt or the Tet Festival in Cabramatta . . . Some multicultural theorists will squawk and say that I prefer only a soft multiculturalism that does not offend western liberal values. They would be spot on. My acceptance ends when the assault on the liberality of society itself begins.

Editor's note: West decided to remove this posting from the SMH website when, as he told The Australian yesterday, those who supported it in comments on the website displayed the very racism he was condemning, while those who opposed it failed to acknowledge his distinction between cultural and racial discrimination, and accused him of racism.

[Dialectic]

AUSTRALIA does not have a race relations problem. We have a clash of cultures and that's a big difference ñ and maybe the problem is certain forms of Islam. Of course, the marauding boneheads who rampaged through Cronulla on Sunday don't make this distinction. If they did, perhaps they would realise that when they screech "Lebs out" they are also referring to the majority of Lebanese Australians who are Maronite Christians, in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

His definition of "race" here is a purely biological/ phenotypical/ genetic one (UR quadrant), as he differentiates it from culture, and in his last paragraph, ethnicity. He states the conflict is largely cultural (LLq); I would say that the problem stems from LL (with the proviso that we are dealing with cultures and different levels of development, some of which CANNOT distinguish race/culture/religion), but as all quadrants "tetra-interact," the problem spreads through all four.

The most controversial thing he states here is that "certain forms" of Islam may to be blame, along with an implication that Lebanese Christians act more civilly and reasonably. While this statement may be somewhat brief and simple, I believe it to be true. The forms of Islam we're looking at here promote oppressive patriarchy, religious intolerance, and a belief in the absolute moral righteousness of ancient Islamic law. They would be similar in this respect to American fundamentalist Christians, though as a result of social and economic development and backgrounds, they are more regressed. At the same time, the Lebanese Christians have not been reported to exhibit fundamentalist behavior, and they are also wealthier and more established.

The problem is not the blood that runs through people's veins. Any form of discrimination based on race or ethnicity ñ based on the colour of one's skin or hair or eyes ñ is inherently immoral, illogical and evil. But culture and religion are behavioural. They involve values. People can be born into a particular culture or religion, but sooner or later they reach an age of reason where they can embrace or reject their precepts. And if people freely embrace a culture that is antithetical to the prevailing social mores ñ in our case, I would hope, liberal, enlightenment values ñ then we are entitled to judge, object, censure and even discriminate.

He is describing a developmental model here. He states, quite correctly, that the "concrete operational," "ethnocentric," "rule-role mind" can be transcended: an individual learns to reflect on cultural/ religious values and accept/ reject them on an individual basis. He makes one mistaken assumption, however: this does not happen "sooner or later": this is not inevitable. This, in fact, doesn't happen in a stable way for most people in the world. He is nonetheless correct in saying that those with more inclusive values, those with the capability to reason and reflect, have the right to judge, object, censure, and even discriminate against those people who do not have those values and capabilities. This is post-pluralist (or trans-pluralist) notion, but one which all pluralistic societies use when applying the rule of law.

Which brings us to this extremely prickly issue of radical Islam . . . Some strains of Islam do, indeed, sanction attitudes and behaviour that are not simply patriarchal but repressive. When groups of young Muslim men stalk the beaches of Sydney making sexually threatening comments against women in bathing costumes, as they indisputably do; and when they believe they act with the license of a sheik who claims that such women are responsible for their own sexual violation, is their religion, at least in part, to blame?

If radical Islam exists (which it does) and influential people espouse radical extremist views (which they do), then the religion is, in part, to blame.

I do not embrace multiculturalism, as such, because I do not believe all cultures are compatible with non-discriminatory liberalism. I prefer a multi-ethnic, non-racial society, which has at its core a canon of values that include racial and gender equality. I admit to feeling a little uneasy at the sight of a Muslim woman shrouded not simply in a headscarf but a face-concealing, head-to-toe chador, and wonder just how much choice she has had in deciding her lifestyle . . . I cannot celebrate such culture in the way that I celebrate Italian National Day in Leichhardt or the Tet Festival in Cabramatta . . . Some multicultural theorists will squawk and say that I prefer only a soft multiculturalism that does not offend western liberal values. They would be spot on. My acceptance ends when the assault on the liberality of society itself begins.

In short, he promotes a multiculturalism which acknowledges lower and higher values, and which can discriminate against values antithetical to mutual respect, equality, and inclusiveness. Though these values originated in the west, we cannot simply reject them because of it: these values are universal. Liberalism as he uses the term is a compassionate and inclusive concept which is free and indeed compelled to defend against lesser compassion and lesser inclusiveness.

Editor's note: West decided to remove this posting from the SMH website when, as he told The Australian yesterday, those who supported it in comments on the website displayed the very racism he was condemning, while those who opposed it failed to acknowledge his distinction between cultural and racial discrimination, and accused him of racism.

This is very interesting. The author quickly found that he was being supported by blue ethnocentrists and attacked by green pluralists, even though his stance is much closer to that of the pluralists than ethnocentrists. Blue supported him because they thought he was saying that white values and culture are superior; greens attacked him because they committed a pre-trans fallacy and thought he was espousing blue morality. (Keep in mind that orange doesn't really give a crap about debates like this because they're out making money.) Integral theory very accurately predicts this type of response.

Finally, I want to also note that his differentiation of race/ ethnicity (or culture, but he doesn't use this word because he wants to avoid the term "multiculturalism")/ religion is something which only rational cognitions are capable of doing (i.e. orange and up). Notice that mythic memberships societies and individuals don't distinguish: everything is wrapped up in one thing. Jewish (to some) IS your race, IS your culture, IS your religion. Muslim (to some) is the same. Industralized/ industrializing Asian cultures have achieved some differentiation: Japanese/ Chinese IS your race and culture (i.e. you simply cannot have a Black Japanese/Chinese person in the way you can have a Black American), but not your religion. Differentiation of these value spheres and aspects of identity, then, is key to promoting a liberal and accepting society.

[Dialectic]

This is a very good article describing the Howard administration's treatment of race and culture-related issues. Briefly, I would say that he's a neo-conservative, or blue-orange, using green language (for example, defending Hanson's right to use anti-Aboriginal and anti-Asian rhetoric in her Parliamentary speeches). Wilber states in one of his interviews that it's common practice now for terrorists to use postmodern language in their statements. What's occurred in the democratic countries is that green has been so successful in spreading surface changes (mainly, its use of language), if not its actual deep values, that the entire spiral has grown accustomed to its terminology and can twist it for its own ends.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17572755%255E601,00.html

Mike Steketee: Hansonism revisited

December 15, 2005
JOHN Howard has shown a remarkable reluctance to use the "r" word in his comments about Sydney's r--- riots and the events surrounding them.

Remarkable because he did confront head-on what happened. "Attacking people on the basis of their race, their appearance, their ethnicity, is totally unacceptable and should be repudiated by all Australians," he said. If this is not racist behaviour, what is? Just as men of Lebanese origin harassing Caucasian women on the beach or attacking lifesavers was racist. As was white supremacists whipping up the Cronulla crowds and the retaliatory violence by Lebanese-Australians.

But don't worry, be happy, because the Prime Minister says that "I do not accept that there is underlying racism in this country".

Never has been, of course. The White Australia policy was purely a form of labour market regulation. The Tampa would have been turned back even if it had been full of white Zimbabweans. And Santa is coming down the chimney in 10 days.

Perhaps on reflection, Howard's avoidance of the racism tag was not so remarkable, given he is a politician. Kim Beazley kept the peg on his nose as well. "It's just criminal behaviour, that's what this is," he said, missing yet another opportunity to be a leader of the Opposition.

No doubt, the people who go to Cronulla beach and who on Sunday were waving Australian flags and shouting "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oi, oi, oi" think of themselves as quintessential Australians, not racists. It is just that their anger against Lebanese-Australian thugs spilled over towards anyone of vaguely Middle Eastern appearance and dress.

It would have been better for Howard and Beazley to call a spade a spade, as NSW Premier Morris Iemma did in denouncing "the ugly face of racism". The nuances in public debate often are lost by the time they are filtered through the media and people's short attention spans. There should be no room for misunderstanding about the attitude of political leaders towards racism.

We have been here before, when Howard defended Pauline Hanson's right to spout anti-Aboriginal and anti-Asian rhetoric in her first speech in parliament in 1996. He reaped the political rewards, picking up most of the former Hanson vote in the 2001 election and keeping it ever since.

But there were costs and not only to Australia's reputation abroad. Hanson unleashed, dare we say it, underlying racism. There were many incidents such as that involving Tracey Lowe, a blonde Caucasian married to a fourth-generation Australian Chinese, who had comments directed at her about her young children.

One woman she came across in a Brisbane suburban shopping centre told her: "My husband fought in the war to keep people like that out of Australia." Lowe's father-in-law happened to be a decorated member of the Australian Z Force commando division during World War II.

Stereotypes quickly develop in the present climate. Clearly, there is a problem in Sydney with some youths of Lebanese Muslim origin who harbour resentment against Australia and its way of life and take it out in violent and criminal behaviour, including against women. But this is a small group in a much larger community. The 2001 census recorded 71,310 people in Australia who were born in Lebanon and there are many more who trace their origin to Lebanese migrants, many of them Christian, who have been coming here for more than 150 years.

Lebanese have one of the highest rates of Australian citizenship: 97 per cent of those eligible, according to government figures. That must say something about their acceptance of Australian values. Prominent Lebanese Australians include Victorian Premier Steve Bracks, NSW Governor Marie Bashir and federal Labor MP Daryl Melham.

It remains the case that most children of immigrants are as Australian in their attitudes as any other person who lives here. Hanson was wrong in her fears about Australia being swamped by Asians living in ghettos. So were those whose fears about earlier waves of immigrants, starting with the Irish and progressing to Italians and Greeks (who attracted the same epithets of "wogs" now directed at the Lebanese), which all proved to be unfounded. Tolerance has always won out over racism in Australia and long may it do so.

Howard's wariness of the racism label brings to mind his refusal early in his period as Prime Minister to use the "m" word. One of his first acts on being elected in 1996 was to disband the Office of Multicultural Affairs and the Bureau of Immigration, Multiculturalism and Population Research. He commissioned an inquiry that debated long and hard about dropping the word altogether before settling on the term "Australian multiculturalism".

Howard is an instinctive assimilationist but the pragmatist in him accepted, as he put it, that multiculturalism had "acquired a certain meaning and place in our society". That is why we have a Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, John Cobb, although millions would not know it.

Howard presumably still is no great fan of multiculturalism, but this week he gave a near-perfect exposition of what it is, or should be, though without using the word: "Put simply, most Australians want a nation where, irrespective of our background and always accepting the right of people to retain affection for their own culture and to honour it as well as their own religion and to honour that, we should encourage to the maximum extent possible everybody to become part of the integrated Australian community."

What the riots prove is not that multiculturalism has failed, but that there has not been enough emphasis on it. Its whole purpose is to avoid just these sort of situations by developing greater understanding and tolerance. That should include exploring and addressing the alienation of young Lebanese men.

Those who know them say that many Lebanese Muslim families have low expectations stemming from their place in society in Lebanon and they often fail to emphasise the importance of education to their children. Unemployment rates are high, as is the consequent resort to crime.

Few young Lebanese are motivated by fundamentalist Islam. But the demonisation of Muslims in the age of terror adds one more ingredient to a volatile mix.