As you've all no doubt heard, John Howard made the odd decision to lash out and attack Barack Obama today. One thing I haven't seen mentioned on American blogs is that I know Howard's Australian critics think he's a racist. As in John Quiggin's observation that "Whenever it has appeared possible to ride a wave of prejudice in Australia, Howard has sought to do so, sometimes successfully and sometimes not." So his brief intervention into US politics may just be part of that pattern and have nothing in particular to do with Obama, Iraq, our election, etc.
« Worst Speech Ever | Main | Mistakes Were Made »
Howard on Obama
11 Feb 2007 06:58 pm
Comments (68)
One thing's for sure, we should all strive in our daily lives to remain wholly uninformed and to pass along specious accusations based solely on the characterizations of others.
Look, I love Dwight Howard as much as any other hoops fan, but I fail to see why I should care what he thinks about Presidential candidates.
Matt didn't mention it, but I have to say, Obama's response to this and his Fox News smears have certainly made me more likely to support him. It makes his bipartisan tendencies more appealing, because he also seems tough and unwilling to accept right wing bullshit.
I think this is Australian writing
http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20070211/doesnt_look_like_farsi_to_me
John Howard, while inarticulate in the manner that Australians admire, is a brilliant politician and a pretty good statesman. He has provided strong rhetorical support for Bush's Iraq Attaq at almost zero cost to his countrymen. Although Australia was one of the original three allies in the 2003 invasion, winning Washington's gratitude, the actual Australian aid he provided was so nugatory that it was a couple of years before even one Aussie soldier was killed in Iraq.
He has been much tougher on illegal immigration than Bush (who hasn't?), which has proven a huge winner in Australian politics. He has won four straight elections. Unfortunately, nobody in American politics seems terribly interested in imitating his winning formula "Let's not reall invade the world and let's not invite the world."
It's hard to know what Howard thought he was doing by making those comments. My personal feeling is that, with Australia heading toward an election in late 2007, Howard was worried that Obama's candidacy might help reinvigorate anti-war sentiment in Australia. Given that Howard's coalition trails in polls, he was perhaps trying to preempt this by getting out in front of the issue.
It seems a flimsy rationale for making such needlessly provocative statements, but I'm not sure what other explanation there is.
Perhaps they were simply off-the-cuff statements that he never expected to get the kind of play they got in the US?
BTW, I would agree that Howard is a bigot.
One take on Howard and his statements: http://www.brownnoiseunit.com/experiencing_blinding_fury
What's the big deal? Politicians comment about foreign politics all the time. David Duke had some things to say about South Africa's poicies, for example.
What is surprising is that this statement comes from the leader of a country which has had such a stellar record of human rights with respect to racial minorities. They had an awesome "child welfare" program throughout most of the 20th century, for example.
John Howard, while inarticulate in the manner that Australians admire - Sailer
About a third of my circle of friends are Ozzies. I have never heard any of them refer to Howard as anything but a fracking moron, notably due to his "inarticulate" manner. Your claim that Australians admire people for sounding like idiots is a slur. It may come as news to you, but many Australians do not surf, do not wear wide-brimmed leather hats or use hunting knives to butter their toast, and are capable of spelling their own names.
Sailer, I'll believe that Howard cares about "illegal immigrants" as opposed to darkies when he does something about the single largest group of illegals living and working in Australia- white backpackers from the US and Europe who have over-stayed their visas. This is by far the largest group violating Australian immigation laws and they are largely left alone. Howard doesn't do anything about them because they can't help stir up fears of a dark threat to the pure bodily fluids of australians. It's another clear case where scratching an "anti-immigration" case shows a racist case an inch below.
"Obama's response to this and his Fox News smears have certainly made me more likely to support him. It makes his bipartisan tendencies more appealing, because he also seems tough and unwilling to accept right wing bullshit."
You see sentiments like this quite often in the comments sections of the lefty blogosphere, and I must say that it's among the more idiotic lines of reasoning imaginable.
this notion that howard espouses-- that you might as well vote for osama if you're thinking of voting for obama-- is something i'm predicting we're going to see frequently if and when he's nominated.
of course, the republicans are going to have to measure the frequency of the attacks until the point of nomination, for fear of unleashing all their energy on him and then having someone else nominated.
but, just imagine the rhetoric that is going to be coming from right wing hate radio, right wing media, mailing groups, swift boat-like groups, the wingnut-owned bulletin boards along freeways, etc etc etc. it's gonna be a non-stop cacaphony of 'obama osama'. and 'why vote for obama when you can vote for osama?' and on and on and on.
of course the republic nominee will be dignified, and will tut-tut that type of language, and say that we should all be above it (while silently smiling and doing nothing at all to stop it).
it's gonna happen if obama is the nominee, there is not a single doubt in my mind. and it's gonna be a lot uglier than any of us can imagine.
a wounded and cornered animal, people.
this notion that howard espouses-- that you might as well vote for osama if you're thinking of voting for obama-- is something i'm predicting we're going to see frequently if and when he's nominated
Gosh, you think? I wonder if They would try that same line of attack on any other Dem nominee.
"You see sentiments like this quite often in the comments sections of the lefty blogosphere, and I must say that it's among the more idiotic lines of reasoning imaginable."
are you serious?
what's wrong with fighting back and not taking shit from the other side? even if you're a republic party member, you should be able to at least appreciate this quality in someone from a distance.
oh, that's right, in a fascist state (which republics clearly wish for) obama fighting back equals disloyalty.
don't you have a book on stalin and a cold glass of vodka waiting for you in front of a fireplace somewhere? why waste time here?
It would go without saying.
While perhaps not literally every Aussie is racist, certainly every Aussie in national office is.
Something like:
Aussie:Aborigine::American:Indian
Matt,
"the single largest group of illegals living and working in Australia- white backpackers from the US and Europe who have over-stayed their visas."
Really? Do you have a good reference on their numbers as compared to, say, South Asians?
How high is their crime rate compared the national average? Do they have lots of kids in the schools? Do they take advantage of free medical care?
"what's wrong with fighting back and not taking shit from the other side?"
My criticism has nothing to do with the merits of fighting back. It has to do with thinking that the intensity and radicalness of a candidate's opponents on the other side is a way to judge the bona fides of that candidate.
Folks on the right are going to hate Obama because he's black and has a certain middle name. They'll hate Hillary because she's a woman and a Clinton. They'll hate Edwards because he's a lefty populist and a trial lawyer.
You ought to figure out who to support based on how likely they are to win a general election, how they'd govern, and how they'd lead the Democratic Party, not based on what John Howard thinks.
Petey, I think the idea is not that John Howard should determine one's vote but that Obama is demonstrating a tendency to counterpunch when trivia this stupid is thrown at him (see also the madrassa nonstory). Regardless of the merits of the matter, Edwards didn't attack Donohue over the Marcotte flap, and I didn't see any response out of his camp over the "his house is too damn big for a Democrat" story. You can argue about the approach, but isn't the general consensus that Kerry's refusal to immediately go on the offensive over the Swift Boat lies one of the things that caused that story to hamstring his campaign so effectively?
You ought to figure out who to support based on how likely they are to win a general election, how they'd govern, and how they'd lead the Democratic Party, not based on what John Howard thinks.
I would say the ability to respond with note-perfect comebacks to hostile criticisms is one indicator of general election success.
Obama gets it just right here: he defends the honor and courage of our troops, the dignity of our party, the sovereignty of our electoral process in the face of presumptuous overseas meddling and the seriosuness of his own proposal all in one breath.
Howard may pay a bit of a political price for his comment, and so Obama also sent a message.
You ought to figure out who to support based on how likely they are to win a general election, how they'd govern, and how they'd lead the Democratic Party, not based on what John Howard thinks.
That completely misses my point, and Steve gets the point I was making pretty clearly. Josh Marshall has referred to it as "bitch slap politics" and I think that nails it. Some Democrats have taken the slap and tried to grin through it. Obama seems to be swinging back with a hook, and I like it.
It would go without saying.
While perhaps not literally every Aussie is racist, certainly every Aussie in national office is.
Something like:
Aussie:Aborigine::American:Indian
Whoa, slow down, pardner. While your magnanimity in conceding that 'not literally every Aussie is racist' is noted, the idea that 'every Aussie in national office is' is simply absurd and deals in the kind of gross stereotypes and simplifications that fuel racism.
"Josh Marshall has referred to it as "bitch slap politics" and I think that nails it."
The point where things cross from good strategy to idiocy is when going on the offense is fetishized as the be all and end all of successful politics.
During the '04 primary race, Howard Dean used to have a section of his speeches that he would refer to as "throwing some red meat to the audience" where he would go on a withering attack against the other side. Fight Club Democrats saw that as a sign that Dean would successfully slap down Republicans in a general election. They were badly missing the point.
Rapid reaction is a core tenet of good political strategy, no doubt. Obama did the right thing in responding to Howard in the way he did.
But offense is not the only part of good political strategy. Defense is just as important. Overall positioning is just as important. A fetishization of offense, a fetishization of a candidate's willingness to always slash back at the Ann Coutlers of the world is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a candidate. And it's a lousy way to determine who to support.
(FWIW, I'm in the Edwards camp in '08. Chirs Bowers has just come over to support my side for "Fight Club Democrat reasons". I think Bowers is an idiot for doing so, despite happily welcoming him into the tent. Frankly, I think Obama, Clinton, and Edwards can all be counted on to counterpunch smartly in a general election campaign. There are better ways to figure out who to support.)
Petey,
I still think you are missing the point of the previous comments. I don't think anyone is saying that they would support Obama solely for his ability to "bitch slap" the noise machine back, but you have to admit that this will be an important part of the coming campaign. Whoever gets the next nomination for the Dems will surely see a much fiercer "swift-boating" than even Kerry faced. A candidate's ability to withstand this onslaught WILL be important, and at this point Obama is demonstrating some skill at it. Hillary has obviously withstood the criticism over time, and I would rate her highly in this category, but after the last election it should be an important part of the evaluation of candidates. I'm a big fan of John Edwards (and haven't cast my lot with anyone yet) but he hasn't yet shown that he can counter-punch in a way that will nullify the attacks of the right wing. I'm sure that he'll be tested during the coming year, but with a pretty liberal field with somewhat similar prescriptions on the war, health care and other issues, a candidates ability to win on style points will be important.
"A candidate's ability to withstand this onslaught WILL be important"
No doubt. But there is a lot of sentiment among activists that conflates a reflexive desire to go on the offense with an ability to successfully withstand the onslaught. And those two things are most definitely not the same.
(And if you're evaluating a candidate's ability to withstand the onslaught, I'd actually say the thickness of their Teflon™ coating is far more important than their ability to rapid respond. Rapid response is easy compared to acquiring Teflon™.)
1) The point about Obama was that he has only been doing what you say. He has been responding to their attacks, not creating things to serve up as red meat for the base. It doesn't seem like he has a reflexive desire to go on offense, just to respond well.
Chris Bowers has just come over to support my side for "Fight Club Democrat reasons".
As I've laid out here, I think netroots movement-building reasons play a big role too. While I'm not as big on it as a lot of people are, I think it's nice to see the netroots get stronger.
Howard's Australian critics think he's a racist.
Not exactly. The left fringe call him a racist. On the left side of the mainstream (e.g. Quiggin), the complaint is not that he's a racist but that he exploits racism; more especially, that he appeals to a segment of the electorate that resents being branded racist by the elitist media just because they want to protect the Australian Way of Life, and who are perfectly willing to support the admission of migrants from non-traditional backgrounds, in small numbers, carefully selected for willingness and ability to embrace said Way of Life.
As to whether Howard is personally racist, it's hardly relevant; he's much too professional a politician to let a small matter of racist or anti-racist sentiment stand between him and the main chance.
"Whoa, slow down, pardner. While your magnanimity in conceding that 'not literally every Aussie is racist' is noted, the idea that 'every Aussie in national office is' is simply absurd and deals in the kind of gross stereotypes and simplifications that fuel racism."
lol - you know you're in a bad way when you start focussing on useless literalisms...
Just for one quick example: Australia is the only developed country whose government has been condemned as racist by the United Nations.
lol!
the complaint is not that he's a racist but that he exploits racism
A fine line, that.
A fine line, that.
Walking fine lines is part of a politician's skill set.
lol - you know you're in a bad way when you start focussing on useless literalisms...
Just for one quick example: Australia is the only developed country whose government has been condemned as racist by the United Nations.
I'm not sure what you mean by the 'literalism' comment.
Your source for this statement about the UN?
And I should add that even if this UN proclamation exists, it's hardly the same thing as saying every national official is a racist.
I'm no friend of Howard or his govt, but my point stands: you're casting around ludicrous generalisations. (No number of 'lols' will change that.)
And what do we think of "if Howard really believes that, he might want to come up with more than 1400 troops for Iraq"? I found it a pretty amusing line. The population ratio of the US to Australia is about 15 to 1, so they should be able to devote 10,000 troops to Iraq, right? Of course Howard's government would probably fall if he tried it, but that would be sort of the point.
I wouldn't get overly excited about this, although Australians should be mightily pissed off and embarrassed. For some reason (getting out of Libby's overheating kitchen?) we in Australia are to be blessed with a visit from Dick Cheney. Howard's just warming up the audience, trying out a few of Dick's very best lines and seeing what still works. You've got to admit, the bit about al-Qaeda in Iraq "circling the calender" out-Cheneys Cheney.
On Iraq, John Howard doesn't speak for the people of Australia any more than George Bush now speaks for the people of the United States.
the complaint is not that he's a racist but that he exploits racism
Is that better or worse?
Matthew's complaining that Howard is a bigot? But just a couple of days ago, Matthew was pro-bigotry. So confusing.
"The largest group among these 'illegals', more than 10,000 in all, came from the United Kingdom."
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s475029.htm
In the US, Asian-Americans - such as Indian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Filipino-Americans - tend to make equal to or higher than the average white American. Asian engineer immigrants were a big part of the dot com boom. They are also among the most educated segments in the country. This is because the US lets Asians succeed. Muslim-Americans make 150% the average American income. Meanwhile, Australia had a policy of ethnic cleansing in which the Aboriginal children of the "lost generations" were taken at birth from their biological parents and raised by white Australian parents. This only ended around 1972. Fuck Australia, Go Obama!
I wonder if Obama's campaign will decide to directly attack the Obama = Osama mantra head-on. Personally, I would go with something like "Obama will beat Osama" or "Obama will fist Osama in his sandy vagina" or "Obama will skullfuck Osama in his eyesocket." Any thoughts?
the complaint is not that he's a racist but that he exploits racism
Is that better or worse?
Worse for the other side of politics, because it worked. But it seems to be used up for now, except the Islamofascist variant, which is still worth a spin any time a sheikh says something silly.
Al, is this bigotry?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chB7ifrYBnE
PS - Stewie is how Bush would be if he had a brain, could speak in sentences, could form coherent thoughts, understood strategy, was cultured, could still drink alcohol and somewhat control his bowels.
Does Howard really want to pick this fight? Does Australia? We'll wipe that snot in a matter of days or weeks if we cared what that buttwipe has to say.
I mean rhetorically, of course. I love Australia and Australians, so it would really piss me off, and it would certainly piss off the Aussies I know, if Howard fouled that up and came between us. Dumb shit.
Who the hell votes for Howard anyway. I don't know enough about Australian electoral politics to know which segment has the dumbest of the dumb fucks.
I'd like to add something that may or may not be relevant: John Howard's son, Richard, worked on George W. Bush's re-election campaign. I believe that there are a number of "interns" from the Republican Party currently working for Howard's Liberal Party in Australia. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
As of May 18 last year, Richard Howard was identified as a “lobbyist” when he escorted “White House staffer” Kristen Slaughter to a White House function.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/05/18/1147545430918.html
They certainly learn each other’s tricks. Another son, Tim Howard, was one of the directors of a computer software company that had a contract with the Liberal Party to send out unsolicited e-mails – spam - to voters.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200408/s1186389.htm
Reality Man
Asian engineer immigrants were a big part of the dot com boom. . . . This is because the US lets Asians succeed. Meanwhile, Australia had a policy of ethnic cleansing in which the Aboriginal children of the "lost generations" were taken at birth from their biological parents and raised by white Australian parents. This only ended around 1972.
(1) East Asian Australians are succeeding just fine, thank you, and pushing up house prices around Glen Waverley.
(2) Not "lost generations", "stolen generation".
(3) Not ethnic cleansing, ethnocide, la destruction systématique des modes de vie et de pensée.
(4) At around 1900-1970, not contemporaneous with the dot com boom, more nearly with Jim Crow.
John Howard, while inarticulate in the manner that Australians admire, is a brilliant politician and a pretty good statesman.
I'm sure that you put it all down to his convict stock.
Obama's flack's reply was okay, though 'Hasn't he retired already?' would have probably gone down even better in Australia.
Then again, from talking to people who have recently been to Australia, you can't walk five feet even in your more cosmopolitan cities without having some white Australian racist complaining about how the Asians come there illegaly, take all the jobs, cause problems, commit crimes, rape the women, etc. Then again, doctors they talked to there who had lived in Australia their whole lives claimed they had never seen an aborigine while an aborigine passed by in a suit.
The difference between ethnic cleansing as opposed to ethnocide, as I understand it, tends to vary from expert to expert. Ethnocide is so little used it has, at least in the literature I've seen, to have fallen into disuse. I tend to see ethnic cleansing used in the sense I see most often, in which it is the movement of people to and/or from an area to destroy their culture, way of life or claim to land and property and thus their culture. For instance, the Chinese movement of Han Chinese into Tibet and Xinjiang, the Australian policy of the stolen generation (I knew "lost generation" somehow didn't feel right), the expulsion of 100,000 Serbians from Kosovo following the NATO invasion and the settlement movement's land grabs and creation of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza would under this definition count as ethnic cleansing. This is different then genocide, in which members of a group are killed off to destroy the group, such as during the Holocaust, the Serbian war against Bosnia, Darfur, the European conquests of the Americas and Australia, and Rwanda, among others.
Then again, from talking to people who have recently been to Australia, you can't walk five feet even in your more cosmopolitan cities without having some white Australian racist complaining about how the Asians come there illegaly, take all the jobs, cause problems, commit crimes, rape the women, etc.
This is the Fox News summary - no sources, man in the street, "some say". It ain't reality, man.
Ayup, more than a few Aussie are racists (and any is too many), but Reality Man's summary is itself crass and stereotypical.
And someone tell that republican goofball defending Howard: it's pronounced 'Ozzie'; 'Ossies' are from Germany...
Reality Man: Then again, from talking to people who have recently been to Australia, etc, etc,
Reality Man, you are Thomas Friedman and I claim my $10.
What is surprising is that this statement comes from the leader of a country which has had such a stellar record of human rights with respect to racial minorities. They had an awesome "child welfare" program throughout most of the 20th century, for example
Stellar... what?
Please, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_generation . Australian politics is very similar to American politics, albeit even more tilted towards a 'red state' mentality. Coded racism, along with anti-environmentalism and, increasingly, pandering to Christian conservativism, are absolutely central to the Australian right wing's politics. Whether Howard himself is racist or merely knowingly exploits racism is beside the point; the point is that it isn't unreasonable to connect his statements about Obama with the coded racism he regularly deploys for whatever reason.
I think there is a much more benign explanation for all this. Howard was getting his butt kicked on global warming all last week. A variety of other issues have been going against him lately, and he's slipped behind Labor in the polls. He saw this as a chance to change the topic to one of his last remaining strengths, security. Judging by the news tonight, he seems to have been quite successful at it.
This idea that Australia is somehow inherently more racist than the US is BS. They've got 20+ percent foreign born population here, and people are integrating quite nicely (the wildly popular mayor of Melbourne was born in China, for example). The US gets up to 10 percent foreign-born and people start throwing fits.
The story in short, is that as one of the most urbanized countries in the world, Australian social mores increasingly favour tolerance and getting along. I know that hasn't always been the case, but to base your opinions on 30+ year old policies (which were viewed as antiquated at the time) is to reveal that you don't really know what you are talking about.
"This idea that Australia is somehow inherently more racist than the US is BS."
False, but apologists' defense of Aussie racism are hilarious.
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1175.htm
So foreign leaders can publicly critically oppose the war, but when one expresses surrender as ill-advised and dangerous let's all condemn the leader and consider their views as little more than empty rhetoric, right? Talk about Double standards. When Ahmadinejad boasts about wiping Israel of the map, or warns that American assets worldwide are within reach of their IRIS icbm where is the outcry? Why is the left so silent on such threats, but when an ally of ours shares a deep concern you all sooner get your panties in a wad? If Obama cannot take criticism of his policies and heed some serious warnings as well, I really wonder if he's Commander in Chief material at all - and with only 2yrs service as a US senator his experience in world affairs is limited and obvious. Conceding to Islamist in Iraq and elsewhere has global consequences, no matter who is in office 2008. Islamist carried out attacks when the Democratic party was in office, i.e. Beirut French & US barracks 1983 (Carter); Trade Centre 1993, Khobar Towers '96 S.Arabia, The US embassy Kenya '98, The USS Cole 2000 (all under Clinton's watch). The PM's comments that Islamists are rooting for a Democratic win is not far fetched at all especially when radical Islamist and al-Qa'ida leaders have openly endorsed and reiterated a Democratic victory as a victory for them also. When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, al-Qa'ida was formed. When Israel pulled out of Gaza Hamas' systematic persecution of minorities rose along with suicide bombings, when Israel retreated from the Lebanon in 2000 Hezballah later dragged both nations to war, when Israel pulled away from the Philadelphi corridor al-Qa'ida and other militant brigades moved in with aid from Tehran. See a disturbing trend? Assyrians in Iraq pray daily the world never abandons them to Islamist thugs because they truly know what awaits them. Hint - radical Islamist groups are empowered when appeased. I also recall Bin Ladin almost a decade ago in '98 describing the US a "paper tiger" referring to Clinton withdrawing troops from Somalia years earlier, he also warned of further terror closer to home. Sadly 9/11 materialized a couple of years later. Australia's PM has every right to express his concern whether people see the bigger picture or not. Obama may begrudge a good ally of America in Howard as full of empty rhetoric, but God forbid when bottled sunshine comes to our cities courtesy of the Muslim Brotherhood® and the "empty rhetoric" they're infamous of. John Howard is not the enemy, the unhinged left needs to bite the reality sandwich before it's too late ((Ω)).
9/11 will pale in comparison...
This idea that Australia is somehow inherently more racist than the US is BS.
I don't know what you mean by 'inherent', but there's quite a lot of countries where racially provocative policies are more able to swing the electorate than America. Australia is one. Denmark and Austria would be other examples. For more recent examples of this than the Stolen Generation, look at the Woomera internment camp for illegal immigrants, the Child Overboard affair, the refusal of the Howard government to apologise for past injustices against Aborigines, the successes enjoyed by Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, and so on. And nobody has been more succesful at playing those racial faultlines than Howard.
This idea that Australia is somehow inherently more racist than the US is BS
I'd say Australia has the most racist white community in the English-speaking world. And John Howard is easily the most racist white leader in the English-speaking world.
The Tampa incident would never have occurred the same way in the US, UK, Canada or NZ. And Jesus Christ,a mob of rampaging whites tore through sydney last year -- Canada hasn't had that in 100 years (the Vancouver anti-Asian pogroms). The US has been clean for 30 years.
I'd agree that there are, individually, worse racists in other english-speaking countries. But the general tenor of Australian politics is the worst of the white dominions. (If we had an independent Confederacy, I'm sure they'd give Australia a run for its money!)
Anon: there's this country called "South Africa"...
Wars and conflicts have raged forever and a day since time in memorial because we're not all equal. S A D reality... as incredibly beautiful and wonderful a Utopian vision of equality for all would be to realize. It's not always about race or creed, or socio economic disparity but also about clashes in ideology. For example the USSR came and went in 70yrs, thankfully in the end its leaders valued the quality of life and future of their own children.. on the other hand today's enemy straps bomb belts to theirs. So hunker down Anon, there's ways ways lot more to worry about than a handful of sun-kissed Aussies reclaiming A beach from muslim youths shouting interfada and death to the USA and Aus.
How high is their crime rate compared the national average?
Backpackers overstaying their visas? Well, I assume drugs are illegal in Australia, so I'm going to go with "incredibly high". Plus the fact that overstaying your visa is itself a crime. Their actually-prosecuted-for-crime rate is probably much lower, because no one arrests white college kids for smoking pot. But that's a function of policing choices, not the inherently law-abiding nature of globe-wandering gap year backpackers.
This topic has run out of steam, but one comment can't go unchallenged.
a mob of rampaging whites tore through sydney last year
That's just untrue. It's an opinion formed by watching edited tape on a television screen from a long way away. There was a problem in a very localised area - Cronulla beach - and it was just a relatively small bunch of idle, drunken troublemakers and vandals who hide behind their respective flags. Once news spread, more idiots joined in, but the rest of Sydney went about its business.
And is there any right wing talking point that uninformed kafir missed? Clinton's watch, Cole, 9/11 . . . that looks like the complete set.
Much of this thread is ill-informed, or at least not put in its proper context. It's all very well to catalogue misdeeds like Children Overboard and the riots in Cronulla, but does anyone believe that a similar catalogue couldn't be compiled for, say, the US, or for Britain, or for Japan? Each country has its share of racism; each country has its share of shameful incidents, policies, and leaders.
Yes, Howard's govt has shamefully fuelled fear and xenophobia and that has been one element in its success. But a country and its institutions is not synonymous with its current govt -- ask yourself, does Bush equal America? Of course not. Well, nor does Howard sum up or stand for Australia.
As someone who originally came to Australia from a much more racially homogenous country (NZ), I was surprised by the number of different races and creeds I encountered in Australia, both at school, in the workplace, and just generally percolating through society. The city where I live is, contrary to some of the ridiculous things that have been said in this thread, actually a great testament to the ability of different peoples to live with each other harmoniously.
That's not to deny that racism is a problem in Australia, as it is anywhere, but just to put it in a proper and more balanced context for the holier-than-thou among you.
Squeaky "Clean" McCrinkle, the issue of radical Islamists having their cross-hairs on American and Western targets must be a pan-partisan concern. If we choose to ignore all the evidence that confronts us daily and of the last 30 odd years at the very least, bottled sunshine will be coming to a city near you. Don't take my word for it or PM John Howard's apprehension on retreat from these thugs, listen to the "empty rhetoric" of the real enemy that is radical Islam. This is not a race issue at all and to claim it as such is pure ignorance of an enemy who could care less if our sensibilities are aligned left, right or center.. if you prefer us to let our guard down, then prepare for the consequences of such decision making. That is the substance of Howard's criticism, not Obama's background. This whole discussion of Australians being racist is pathetic nonsense, it has nothing at all to do with withdrawal at the hands of Islamist. Nothing! Get real..
The same old "emboldening Islam" crap? Howard, Jacoby, Kistol, Krauthammer- all these doughy buzzards and their chewed-out phlegm have no place in society anymore. These are the punchlines Al-Zawahiri and Mullah Omar bring up when they want Osama to bust-out laughing. Radical Islam is Victorious Radical Islam because of these stupid motherfuckas.
Of course not all Australians are racist. Some of them aren't even white!
But yeah, Australia is very Racist. Certainly compared to the U.S.
Of course not all Australians are racist. Some of them aren't even white!
But yeah, Australia is very Racist. Certainly compared to the U.S.
Well, given all the evidence you present, I wouldn't dream of arguing with you.
Jesus.
Reality Man:
Then again, from talking to people who have recently been to Australia, you can't walk five feet even in your more cosmopolitan cities without having some white Australian racist complaining about how the Asians come there illegaly, take all the jobs, cause problems, commit crimes, rape the women, etc.
In the unlikely event that they said anything so ridiculous, you should have asked them how anyone in Australia every gets anything done, between stopping every few feet to exchange political opinions with perfect strangers.
You can certainly find people in Australia complaining about too many Asians. Where I live now in the Mid West of the United States we hear complaints about too many Mexicans. So it goes.
Ethnocide is so little used . . .
True. On the other hand, "ethnic cleansing" is widely used, but not in the sense you want to give it.
I tend to see ethnic cleansing used in the sense I see most often, in which it is the movement of people to and/or from an area to destroy their culture, way of life or claim to land and property and thus their culture.
Your post aside, I've never seen it used to mean anything but the removal of one ethnicity from an ethnically mixed area. A few miles from where I live are markers for the Trail of Tears (the Miami one not the better known Cherokee). That's ethnic cleansing.
sherifffruitfly, Australia is [too] inherently more racist than the US; Anon, Australia has the most racist white community in the English-speaking world; Chad Okere, Australia is very Racist.
As an Australian currently living in the US, I don't see that much difference between them. Historically there are a lot of parallels. They've both treated their indigenous population miserably; they've both had an early episode of East Asian immigration (Japanese, Chinese) followed by race-based immigration restrictions (Immigration Act 1924, White Australia policy); they've both been largely but not entirely successful in integrating immigrants first from Europe and later from Asia; they've both had political leaders who've exploited racist sentiment without overtly adopting racism (Nixon and "law and order", Howard and "illegal immigrants jumping the queue"). The big difference is the lack of an Australian parallel to US slavery and sequels (blackbirding was a much smaller business with much smaller aftershocks).
As an American, I have to say that I find it quite disappointing to see Americans get into high dudgeon about the stolen generation without any apparent knowledge that there are direct parallels in American history. The US government separated Native American children from their parents with much the same rationales, and much the same consequences. The difference appears to be that virtually all Australians are aware of their sad history. The writings on this thread suggest that many Americans may not be aware of their own.
One notable difference in policies toward aboriginal peoples in recent years is that the Australian government has seen fit to return title on native lands when so directed by their high court. Given the same opportunity by the US Supreme Court, the US Congress has demurred. You can, on occasion, hear white Australians griping about the return to native title. Take that as racism if you will. I think white Americans would gripe too if important national landmarks were returned to American Indian ownership.
Another notable difference between the countries is that public ceremonies in Australia almost always begin with a formal recognition that that traditional owners of the place in question are the local aboriginal people. Nothing like that happens in the US.
Pauline Hanson and Pat Buchanan are not so different, except that Buchanan retains a place in the commentariat, while Pauline Hanson is an object of national ridicule. If you are going to persist with this, you can begin by defending Tancredo.
The point is not to argue that either country can be particularly proud of its history in these areas. Rather, I was simply trying to say that the Americans pointing fingers seem to lack a certain amount of perspective on this matter. I wouldn't expect any better on RedState, it's a little shocking to see such ignorance/tribalism on Yglesias' site.
All the comments to the effect that other countries also have blemished records and that many, many Australians aren't racist is fine and true, especially in many of the cosmopolitan 'blue state' areas that have been specifically been mentioned by several commenters. But the point stands that racist or racist-pandering politics have different levels of appeal in different countries, which is hardly surprising.
Australia, along with Austria and Denmark and various other countries, have seen some very succesful racist-pandering politics in the very recent past. Compare that to the immigration issue in the US, where a few Republicans used hardline anti-immigrant rhetoric in the recent elections, which may have helped them in very conservative constituencies but caused a nationwide backlash in the Latino vote that contributed to the 2006 Democratic landslide.
The idea that the Australian government has been progressive in terms of indigenous land rights is bizarre. Every piece of land that has been handed by the federal government back to indigenous people has been done so by court order, with the government's vigorous opposition. This is a marked contrast to the treatment of land reparations in, say, New Zealand or Canada, though I'm not as familiar with the US case so I can't comment on that comparison.
The most egregious case is this one. http://www.lakotaarchives.com/lakland4.html
The Court has only awarded monetary compensation, arguing that Congress alone has the authority to return the land. Bills in Congress to restore the land have not gotten out of committee. This is an area that contains two important national monuments - Mt Rushmore and Devil's Tower; it won't be returned. That's a pretty stark contrast with Uluru and Kakadu.
More broadly my argument would be that a whole series of outrages that would be unthinkable in Australia (the wholesale disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida, Abu Ghraib, the government's indifference to the victims of Katrina) are all quite plausibly viewed through the lens of racism. No these things don't turn elections in the US, they don't even come up.
If you want to get serious about this, one should probably also view inadequate schools and health care in minority areas in the US as potentially linked to racism. There are situations in America that would simply be viewed as unacceptable if they were occurring on that scale in Australia.
And on the question of immigration, I'll stick with my earlier point. The US has far fewer immigrants as a share of population. Crank that share up to 20% and you might see the nativists in the Republican party be far more successful. I'm not all that clear on our refugee policies, but my recollection is that our alternative to Woomera is automatic return of most Caribbean refugees (except Cubans) without any hearing at all.
I'm proud of many things my country has given the world, but it doesn't seem to me that we are in any position to be giving Australia lectures on racism.
Comments closed February 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
As an Australian its completely bizarre to have the PM of the country claim, 2 years away from a US election, that electing one candidate will impact negatively on the GWOT.
Quite frankly most Australians aren't that concerned about terrorism, they are more worried about climate change and the drought. We've had the driest and hottest years in the last half century recently - the hottest January on record I think.
Although it is reminiscent of Bush et al's comments prior to the US election that electing Democrats would embolden the enemy .... so I think Howard has finally "jumped the shark" as it were. He's had a number of domestic failures lately as he and his party look increasingly out of touch with the Australian electorate on climate change, the drought and thus water issues, and of course, the continued incarceration of David Hicks at Guantanamo Bay. 5 years of solitary confinement and no charges until recently. Its a farce.
BTW Matt, I really like your blog, I've been reading it for awhile and particularly enjoy the mix of posts - the basketball posts seem to bring out the lurkers, maybe because its easier to comment on.
Posted by Xenoliths | February 11, 2007 7:25 PM