Lebs vs Aussies - some quick thoughts
Wow - Sunday was crazy at Cronulla. 5000 “Whities” coming from all over Sydney to stand unified in their hatred of "men of Middle-Eastern appearance" (actually, and women, if some of the reports can be believed).
The first thing this has done is throw up the age-old argument that Australia is not a multi-cultural society and there are undercurrents of racism that exist, and always will exist, that the mainstream refuses to recognise.
I think this is half right.
Racism, in the sense of discrimination or prejudice based on race is an innate part of the human condition. The key is the degree to which we act in response to these feelings. That's what separates the majority from those that instigated and carried on this nonsense in beachside Sydney this, and last, weekend.
There will always be racism in Australia, but that does not preclude us from being multi-cultural - last Sunday I sat and had lunch with A Lebanese Christian, a Lebanese Muslim, an Indonesian, a Ghanaian, a Filipino and me, a Spanish Australian... and we were eating at an Italian Restaurant in beachside Bondi. Funnily enough it was only when I considered it that I realised our different backgrounds. We were the new Australia, all from different backgrounds but all Aussies in the end.
The second thing is, like in many places around the world, this explicit hatred of a general group of people is often founded on some form of actual facts - blown out of proportion - then developed into a cult-like following.
Middle-Eastern hatred of the US can be linked to the role the US has had in promoting tensions in the region and the political expediency involved in supporting the Israeli cause despite the hypocrisy of taking a People's land to give to another People who had their land taken.
Clearly (actually, almost certainly) most Americans have no idea about what's really going on in the Middle East and they probably don't overtly support the oppression of Middle Eastern people for political gain, but they've been caught up in the fight. As a result, there would appear to be a general hatred and fear of those from the Middle East.
Now, transpose this to beachside Cronulla. There is no doubt that the few Lebs who were minding their own business at Cronulla ought not have been attacked like they were, but this cannot be taken out of context. For far too long Lebanese gangs (I only call them gangs as a descriptor - I realise that its just generally groups of friends and family hanging out) have intimidated and threatened people wherever they go. While out of context (and probably in context) what happened yesterday in Cronulla was unacceptable, it is, in some ways understandable.
Hopefully the tension will die down now for a bit and we will all look back and learn a thing or two. The Anglo-Saxon Aussies involved need to learn that neither beaches, nor Australia in general, is "theirs" - it's yours and mine and the Lebs' and the Asians' and everyone's - either those Anglo-Saxon Aussies can learn to like it or they can go back to where they came from. Secondly, young Leb guys need to realise that you can't go round causing trouble like that - bashing a lifesaver is ridiculous. Don't blame it on culture or origin - blame it on the fact that they think it's funny to attack soft targets. I have nothing against gang on gang violence - it sounds kinda fair and at least everyone there is there for a fight - just leave the rest of society out of it and I guarantee that, miraculously, people will start hating Lebamese Australians in general, a lot less.
The first thing this has done is throw up the age-old argument that Australia is not a multi-cultural society and there are undercurrents of racism that exist, and always will exist, that the mainstream refuses to recognise.
I think this is half right.
Racism, in the sense of discrimination or prejudice based on race is an innate part of the human condition. The key is the degree to which we act in response to these feelings. That's what separates the majority from those that instigated and carried on this nonsense in beachside Sydney this, and last, weekend.
There will always be racism in Australia, but that does not preclude us from being multi-cultural - last Sunday I sat and had lunch with A Lebanese Christian, a Lebanese Muslim, an Indonesian, a Ghanaian, a Filipino and me, a Spanish Australian... and we were eating at an Italian Restaurant in beachside Bondi. Funnily enough it was only when I considered it that I realised our different backgrounds. We were the new Australia, all from different backgrounds but all Aussies in the end.
The second thing is, like in many places around the world, this explicit hatred of a general group of people is often founded on some form of actual facts - blown out of proportion - then developed into a cult-like following.
Middle-Eastern hatred of the US can be linked to the role the US has had in promoting tensions in the region and the political expediency involved in supporting the Israeli cause despite the hypocrisy of taking a People's land to give to another People who had their land taken.
Clearly (actually, almost certainly) most Americans have no idea about what's really going on in the Middle East and they probably don't overtly support the oppression of Middle Eastern people for political gain, but they've been caught up in the fight. As a result, there would appear to be a general hatred and fear of those from the Middle East.
Now, transpose this to beachside Cronulla. There is no doubt that the few Lebs who were minding their own business at Cronulla ought not have been attacked like they were, but this cannot be taken out of context. For far too long Lebanese gangs (I only call them gangs as a descriptor - I realise that its just generally groups of friends and family hanging out) have intimidated and threatened people wherever they go. While out of context (and probably in context) what happened yesterday in Cronulla was unacceptable, it is, in some ways understandable.
Hopefully the tension will die down now for a bit and we will all look back and learn a thing or two. The Anglo-Saxon Aussies involved need to learn that neither beaches, nor Australia in general, is "theirs" - it's yours and mine and the Lebs' and the Asians' and everyone's - either those Anglo-Saxon Aussies can learn to like it or they can go back to where they came from. Secondly, young Leb guys need to realise that you can't go round causing trouble like that - bashing a lifesaver is ridiculous. Don't blame it on culture or origin - blame it on the fact that they think it's funny to attack soft targets. I have nothing against gang on gang violence - it sounds kinda fair and at least everyone there is there for a fight - just leave the rest of society out of it and I guarantee that, miraculously, people will start hating Lebamese Australians in general, a lot less.
17 Comments:
At 12:14 AM, December 16, 2005, Anonymous said…
"Clearly most Americans have no idea about..."
How long have you lived in America?
I mean, obviously, you are an expert on Americans, although it seemed as though you are an Australian living in Australia talking about Australia. So how is it you know so much about what Americans know about the Middle East?
Please, who are you kidding? Only children make blanket statements about entire nations and what they know or feel. Even citizens of a nation cant really speak for their country entirely, so how can you speak with certainty about people living in another country on the other side of the freaking planet?
Pompous bullshit.
At 10:40 AM, December 16, 2005, KH said…
OK – Let’s look at this…
1. I didn’t make a blanket statement about a whole nation – I said “most” Americans have no idea about what’s really going on in the Middle East (in reference to the politics that were involved in the formation of a Jewish State on Palestinian land and subsequent regional politics). I think that’s a fair comment. If you have evidence to the contrary then let me know and I’ll definitely post it.
2. That having been said, I think that “most” citizens of “most” Western countries don’t know either – that’s not a their fault necessarily – it’s a reflection on the way that information has been presented.
3. I have spent, in total, approximately 3 months in the US. I’m not sure if that qualifies as enough time to make me an expert but you asked – so I wanted to answer.
K
At 11:04 AM, December 16, 2005, Anonymous said…
No, there's not really any room for suggesting it was a non-categorical statement.
Have a look:
"Clearly (actually, almost certainly) most Americans have no idea about what's really going on in the Middle East and they probably don't overtly support the oppression of Middle Eastern people for political gain, but they've been caught up in the fight. As a result, there would appear to be a general hatred and fear of those from the Middle East."
You used the words clearly, certainly and general hatred. Those are not vague terms.
You are just really, really wrong.
America has millions of Arabic and Semitic people. Millions. When you talk about America, you are also talking about those people. Do you see what a huge mistake that would be?
Please never allow yourself to form beliefs about another country based on what you see on the television.
I only ask for fairness. you know Australia, so talk about Australia.
At 12:56 PM, December 16, 2005, KH said…
Try as I might, I can’t agree with you.
A categorical statement would have been "Americans don't know what's happening in the Middle East" or "All Americans hate and fear those from the Middle East"
I deliberately included the qualifiers "most" Americans and "almost" certainly because I didn't want it to be a categorical statement.
Furthermore, I am well aware that there is a large Middle-Eastern population in the US but there is nothing precluding members of that community from hating and/or fearing other people of Middle Eastern descent. As an example, certain members of my extended family (which is Lebanese Christian) actually agree with the targeting of Arab Muslims because they believe that they are the root cause of trouble in the region. (NB: I don't necessarily share these views)
In any case, what you seem to be arguing is that it is unfair to make generalisations about a country irrespective of whether you live there or not. I don't agree with this. I am very comfortable making the general statement that Australia is multicultural yet there is still an innate racism which lurks underneath.
So, your argument might be that people ought not to make generalist statements about a country where they don't live. But if we take into account how most people from developed nations learn about their country of residence it is through media, which has the potential to extend their knowledge far beyond their immediate contacts. Because of this I am just as qualified as the next person to speak on matters of the US if I consume the same type of media as a US citizen (and you might be surprised how much US content is displayed in Australia) and maybe more qualified if I consume media from a set of disparate media sources.
So, then, maybe your argument is that generalist comments are not acceptable in any circumstances - but this, itself, is a generalist comment and, as such, is self-contradicting.
The outcome is this, my comments are qualified, general statements, derived from informed opinions based on US and other foreign sources as to the state of sentiment towards people of Middle Eastern descent, both in the US and abroad.
I think that qualifies them as being, at the least, worth consideration and not 'pompous bullshit"
At 10:04 PM, December 16, 2005, Anonymous said…
"The outcome is this, my comments are qualified, general statements, derived from informed opinions based on US and other foreign sources as to the state of sentiment towards people of Middle Eastern descent, both in the US and abroad."
No, the outcome is that you watch TV and think that makes you an expert on people who live 12,000 miles away.
But you're right. It's not pompous bullshit, it's ignorant, pompous horseshit.
At 1:03 AM, December 17, 2005, Anonymous said…
Holy moly guys, this is, err, hilarious. As usual, I love watching Kim argue his point and I think he is making a very good point except for one glaringly obvious thing....
I do agree that a person doesn't necessarily have to live in a country to be able to make general observations about it. A keen intellect, a good heart and eyes like a hawk (!) can go a long way.
However, if you, Kim, are relying on the same general sources of information as the Americans apparently do, then by the same standards that you suggest that Americans in general don't know what's going on in the Middle East, you too do not know what is going on in the Middle East, especially since "...you might be surprised how much US content is displayed in Australia".
As a result, unless you have access to other sources (which you may very well have), then you basically cancel yourself out of the equation that you are trying to create.
Capeesh?
If you try to win, you will always provide an opening that can be expolited....
I love this shit!
LOL
Now, can you guys now kiss and make up (I know you both want to xoxoxo)
PS: No one who relies on the commercial and politically motivated media will know what is going on in the Middle East so you all need to ask ME if you wants to know. Nino Brown maybe 3 generations deep in gangstadom but I'm 1000 generations deep in Middle Easterndom
PSS: THAT's word...
hehe
Sleiman
At 1:29 AM, December 17, 2005, KH said…
I have never asserted that I'm an expert on matters within the US. It was you that claimed this, then you who tried to use this against my arguments. It would be the same as me calling you a supremist because you claim that Australians cannot possibly know the same things Americans know (which doesn't appear to be what you are saying), then criticising you for being one. Obviously my argument would be laughable - as is yours.
What you suggest is that it is not possible to provide an informaed decision based on various media sources, or anything at all. In fact your arguments suggest that no-one outside of the US is capable of understanding sentiment within the US.
It follows then that you must also think that eveyone in the US knows more about the US than anyone outside of it.
Does this mean that your average Joe Citizen can claim to have a better understanding than, for instance, a BBC reporter whose profession it is to research these matters?
If the answer is yes, then your issues go beyond me and extend to all foreign sources, whether professional or amateur. IF this is the case perhaps your time would be better served writing to foreign media.
If the answer is no, then you acknowledge it is possible for a foreigner to understand more and your arguments have been shown to be what they are - nonsense.
Another option is to claim that professionals may be able to form opinions, but not amateurs. However, if I use those profesionals as primary sources of information then I am acting merely as a vessel for their thoughts and have vicariously obtained the "power" to be able to talk on matters about the US.
And what about if my sources are primarily US based, does that not mean that my primary research comes from people within the US who, because of your claims, must understand the situation?
Show me something, more than your opinion, proving that there is no way for me to be able to attain knowledge about US sentiment in general and I will consider your arguments.
Until then, I'll have to treat your emotional comments like "It's not pompous bullshit, it's ignorant, pompous horseshit" with the contempt they deserve.
At 1:55 AM, December 17, 2005, KH said…
The argument, Sleiman, is not whether Americans know what's going on - Mr/Ms Anonymous is claiming that I have no authority to make that assertion.
But anyway, contrary to what you think, I can watch the exact same media as another (American) person and take different things from it.
It has to do with selective attention and retention and the way that different people can contextualise information differently. (Don't forget I used to tutor communications at Uni Sleiman - so try not to argue about this one)
So - if i start off with a broader understanding of the issues (Let's ask US Joe Citizen about the hagannah and the Stern Gang - as an example) then it is in fact possible for me to watch/read exactly the same thing and absorb it differently.
In some cases what's missing, as opposed to what's presented - such as an absence of balanced reporting - can be indicative of anti-Arab sentiment and this opinion can only be developed if one has a broader understanding.
But anyway...that's another argument. Like I said, the crux of the other debate is whether I have any authority to speak about sentiment in the US - and I do, not as an expert, but as an informed reader/watcher.
I ought to go to bed - it's late.
K
At 11:17 AM, December 17, 2005, Anonymous said…
Once again Kim, I am astounded by your capacity to reason and find useful avenues of understanding through what could be considered a violent way of proof.
I'm not going to argue about selective attention because I happen to agree with it. Most Australians wouldn't know jack from shit otherwise they wouldn't have voted for Honest Johnny (assuming of course that he won the election through a positive application of the voting process and not by default - that is, people leaving their ballots blank or donkey voting...).
I use the phrase violent proof because one doesn't need to beat up others to 'win'. Even if one attains the sweetest of victories, the person or persons that you once 'vanquished' can still defeat you through intermediatires (that is, revenge through ma cuzins...). Even more subtle, one can defeat onself by creating a target (Like I mentioned before, the mind plays with it's host before it kills it...).
That's why winning is an equation that traps you. I was telling one of my friends last night that I was introduced to the art of debating through you. And it's a very valuable skill to have as there seems to be far too many people who like to think that they know what's going on but as Socrates demonstrated, it's actually quite simple to find their weaknesses and expose how little they actually know.
The danger though is that the more you prove that you are right (and in this case I happen to agree with you) the further away from the truth you get.
Danny and I used to post on a martial arts forum for our art and dare I say, what we posted was of some quality. Most of the forum members though, spent a good part of their time arguing over useless points that really had nothing to do with the training. There were some posters, who even though I enjoyed the logic of their posts and happened to agree with them, by virtue of the fact that they actually posted, they turned out to be incorrect.
In martial arts, this paradox is called 'kyojitsu' which, when read literally, means 'falsehood-truth'. In the fact of victory, the seed of defeat exits.
So even though I agree with everything you wrote, the very fact that it was written reveals to me that you lost the debate (even though you won...).
That's why winning has no inherently valuable meaning anymore. (A current example could be the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Zionists got their land and all of the support that they could possibly need but have they really 'won'? At the same time, the Palestinians are in a way defeating themselves by the way some of them try to win over Israel yet the seed of their victory is evident...
I think that the skills of debating should be used to discover, not to defeat...
Peace in the Middle East, and I'm outta here...
Sleiman
At 6:11 PM, December 17, 2005, KH said…
“astounded” – hopefully in a good way :)
Anyway – each to his own – how could you be the sobering Ying to my raging Yang if we both thought the same way? Another example of how we differ in this regard is your choice of Martial Arts over my choice – Krav Maga (Even though it’s really a “self defence system” – bah, go the Israelis!)
Krav Maga teaches me to avoid trouble at all costs and, only when conflict becomes inevitable, to finish things as quickly as possible. The idea is to provide rational explanations as to why my opponent and I should not involve ourselves in “violent” confrontation then, when that doesn’t work, to use whatever is necessary to get my “point” across. It also focuses little on higher meanings and instead is achingly practical.
That’s my general debating style.
When it comes to specific issues of contention, I see no use for the abstract (you must admit that your comments often fall within the abstract) and prefer instead to address direct point by direct point. I don’t really care about what the “true” point of an argument is, I’ll argue as many different interpretations as I can find – remember the pastime of Madrid is debate for debate’s sake – that’s what I like.
Oh – just as an aside, contrary to what you think, the process of arguing/debating is just as much about my own personal discovery (other people’s paths of discovery are up to them to determine) as it is about shutting down those that, God forbid, disagree with me. By responding to Danny’s comments, I first questioned whether or not I should have written what I did, and then decided to respond. So while I agree with the notion of debate for debate’s sake, I do take things away from my disagreements because they often force me to question my own belief in what I’m saying.
Anyway – I’ve never met Danny, but if I did, I would smash him…hahahahaha – just wanted to chuck that in there for shock value – I don’t know and really don’t care who could smash who, but it’s completely irrelevant, so please don’t comment on that statement.
What I meant to say was that I have no problem with Danny. I congratulate him for having an opinion, which is something more people should have, and look forward to more debates with him if he continues to post. Who knows, we may even gang up on you some time…
At 6:01 PM, December 18, 2005, Anonymous said…
Of course my astonishment was in a 'good way'! Like I said, I learnt how to tear up people's arguments from watching you. I don't think I've ever seen anyone so energetically committed in, uhm, exploring opinions.
Fortunately, there is a sense of, dare I say, 'fun' in the tenacious manner in which you tear things up (by the way, aren't YOU meant to be the sobering Ying to my raging Yang?)
Your mention of our choices in martial arts is interesting. What needs to be protected? Just the body? Perhaps. What about the mind, the heart, the spirit? Self-protection exists on many, many subtle levels. Most of these levels are simply unknowns for most people, but as the old adage goes, 'there is always more'.
When does one's way of thinking (for example) become a hindrance to the exploration of the previously mentioned adage? When, and at what level, does the 'achingly practical' cease to become so? How does one recognise that it has ceased to become so or even more importantly, is likely to become so?
You mention that my writing is a abstract. With my writing style, I try to explore and reveal the depth of the connections that exist. Look at idioms for example. They often express more than what 'technical' grammar could. They bypass the unecessary and get straight to the heart of the matter. If you only go point by point, then first of all, you limit yourself to the level of your 'opponent' and secondly, you can also miss the connections between the points that give the argument it's life (at whatever level it exists...)
It's these 'connections' that reveal one's level of knowledge, and by that I don't mean how much one 'knows'.
They say that learning never stops but if we try and 'know' everything, perhaps our heads will explode. Maybe that's why Einstein only used 10% of his mind....
LOL
Gang up on me? I'd see your pink ninja outfits with my eyes closed....
hehe
Sleiman
At 10:55 AM, December 19, 2005, Anonymous said…
I think I just farted....
Oh ...am I on...oh shit ok. Can they read this now...ok
Lighten up all of you. We all know the worlds gone to hell in a hand basket so unfortunatley we have to just accept it.
As you may well know I can't argue shit so I'm just gonna pass on some crap words of wisdom I think I saw in a calendar or on a coffee mug or something "If you can't change the world, then just change your world"
...nuff said
On a lighter note, How's the Mrs. Kim. Haven't seen you guys in a while...give her a big hug n' kiss for me.
Solly, I want my fucking birthday present.
Well I'm off to Cronulla for some sun & surf.
At 11:08 PM, December 19, 2005, Anonymous said…
On a different note, I can't help but wonder about the differing levels of national identity and the source of that sentiment.
I was brought up in a place where we were freely encouraged to analyze and criticize our own system. Our own diversity was reaffirmed on a daily basis, and yet, I am very certain of what I am. That's not the result of indoctrination, it comes from choice.
It seems so odd to me that someone would consider himself a man without a country.
I tried to think this way, to see what lessons I could learn. I am no fool, I was very well educated, but I could not avoid judgement. That way of thinking was empty to me.
I made my choice and I am happy with it. The Japanese often do things because it" makes them feel more Japanese."
I dont understand why anyone would need to do something to feel more like what they are. I have never felt as though my identity were diminished or needed replenishment or improvement in any way.
How could you need to do something to feel more like yourself?
It sounds so strange to me.
At 9:56 PM, December 20, 2005, Anonymous said…
Charlies comments presume that individual responsibility may not equate to social responsibility. Or, maybe he is suggesting that if you take care of your own, then the rest of the world will fall into place?
Paradoxically, it is this type of 'individualistic' thinking that assists in driving the 'herd' mentality that we witnessed on Sydney beaches recently. That is, one laying claim to what one believes to be theirs. Simply, laying claim to land, territory is the epitome of much of the worlds problems (often hidden under the guise of political or religious beliefs).
In one of those really bad Sydney newspapers, there was a photo of a young man of Anglo-Saxon appearnace which had these words written on his chest "You flew here! We grew here!". Does anybody remember that this country, as we know it, was founded on the brutal and bloody slaughter of massive numbers of indigeneous Australians? Also, would you believe that many of these people 'of Middle Eastern appearance' actually 'grew here' too. der.
Australia as a 'developed' nation is young. The fact that certain Australians of a certain 'colour' lay claim to this land as 'theirs' really frustrates me, especially when there is little mainstream acknowledgement of the original inhabitants of this country and also, when this country is only just beginning.
*MelA*
At 12:33 AM, December 21, 2005, KH said…
Actually Mel (how are you, by the way?) I think Charlie's comments could be read to presume that social responsibility is built upon many individual responsibilities - so while the idea of changing the world may seem too great from your starting point, the mere act of changing yourself is actually the first step in the process of arriving at that social change which you thought you coudln't achieve.
As the XXXX (insert your own adjective here) Michael Jackson once said "I'm starting with the man in the mirror..." (sing along if you know the words)
I can't believe I'm backing Charlie up...:(
Also - that anonymous post after Charlie's - I'm confused.
There are some interesting points there - but the following two have me confused: -
"It seems so odd to me that someone would consider himself a man without a country." - Is this just a general point or did you encounter someone who claimed to be without a country?
"How could you need to do something to feel more like yourself?
It sounds so strange to me. " - Is this just a reflection on the Japanese example you gave or in reference to something else?
Maybe these could be a new post on the front page?
At 10:39 PM, December 21, 2005, Anonymous said…
I am fine, thanks. (Video is rendering as we speak)
Of course, in order to 'change the world', than you ought to start by 'changing yourself'. 'Think global, act local' etc. No doubt.
Even though Charlies comments could be read that 'social responsibility is built upon individual responsbility', I'm not sure he entirely believes this - "We all know the worlds gone to hell in a hand basket so unfortunatley we have to just accept it." I think you could be mistaking Charlies's pessimism as mine. Goodness, if you think that starting with your own life will play a postive part in society, then you should at least acknowlege the possibility and potential for social change.
There is also a difference between actually trying to change your own world and using that as an excuse to just being ignorant to the rest of the world.
Really, how far do people go to change themselves or their surroundings? If your wife or boss slips a prejudice comment, do you speak up? When was the last time you had dinner with an Indian Sikh's who wears the Turban or Patka? How do you support non-prejudice acts in your daily life? Even small things such as giving the boy in despatch the same courtesy as you would your Supervisor?
Ah, questions...Its just that people can say that are starting with themselves, but how are they? Do you step outside your level of comfort to actually change yourself?
One shouldn't say that they are changing their own world, when in fact what they are really doing is being ignorant to the rest of the world!
At 11:15 AM, January 03, 2006, Anonymous said…
It's amazing how such educated people can categorise 'acceptence' & 'ingnorance' as the same. I would see 'acceptance' as seeing the reality of the situation at hand. What one thinks of it or how one deals with it is up to the individual. And 'ignorance' being the inability to see the reality or choosing not to see and/or deal the reality.
So Mel I do not think I'm pessimistic I just realise that some things I cannot change and I don't pretend I can. So as long as I can affect the world immediately around me eg: treat people equally, discuss other points of views in various conversation etc. I am thus changing my world and making my time on this planet more pleasurable. Hopefully for those in contact with me also.
I don't presume to think i change societies views/behaviour on certain topics thus I can accept the world is "going to hell in a hand basket"
I hope this clears thing up a little.
Post a Comment
<< Home