Letters to the Editor
-
There are many Australias, not just one
What is happening in Australia is that the dominant, Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Celtic minority, who rule, and dominate our institutions, want to keep on having that privilege. Asians, Africans, Arabs, and 'people of middle Eastern appearance'-- a very telling phrase-- however, threaten their image of Australia as white and European (a byproduct of British colonization), because they don't look like the dominant class. As few and few white Anglo-Saxons and Europeans are giving birth, the more the dominant class begins to decry that 'we' (meaning 'they') will perish if we don't reproduce (hence the baby bonus). Or, they hysterically whine that Australia is being 'swamped' by "illegal immigrants" (that is, refugees)who will drain the public purse (which resembles the racist rhetoric of Nativists in the USA). That is, are being swamped by people who don't look like (or behave, or think) like us (meaning them: the dominate class). You see, Australian identity has always been defined around our idea of the nation; and those doing the defining have been elites trying to persuade us that their definition is the right one. For instance, the nationalism of the 1890s was actually the way the colonials tried to distinguish themselves from the British, or old country.
John Howard, however, prefers to focus on 'our' British past; 'our' common ancestors', which makes no sense to most Australians. Can you imagine Americans celebrating having once been colonists, British subjects? But that's what little Johnnie expects us Australians to do because it gives the Anglo-Saxon (those of British descent) rulers their legitimacy. That's why he is on a mission to have a new curriculum which gives priority to 'Australian history' -- which is just the social studies of old where we were regaled with stories about the first fleet, Captain Cook's discovery of Australia, the pioneers and no mention of Aborigines implemented in schools (a history, that is, of white imperialism). That he wants to go back to the days of the White Australia policy is pretty obvious, except of course to fellow racists. The Cronulla riot, as such, must be seen within this context. From the time Howard was first elected, multiculturalism was continually denounced (along with 'the welfare state') because it ran counter to their image of Australia as white, Christian, Anglo-Saxon and European rather than as democratic and pluralistic (or egalitarian; a nation of the 'fair go': Old Labor's defintion). It was a tool by which to politically mobilize subject groups within the nation of different classes to side with the dominant class, who pretended to represent their interests. By referring to 'Australian' values, and what makes 'us' a nation' Howard could convince umemployed white youth, working class tradesmen, the middle class, yobbos, and white suburbanites that they shared common goals and should resist anyone not conforming to these goals. Instead of seeing they had more in common with Lebanese youth than they did with multi-millionaires like John Laws or Rupert Murdoch, they instead swallowed Howard's racist rhetoric of there being one nation, one Australia (white Australia). The white rioters waved Australian flags, totally unaware of the British union Jack and its history. The rioters of the Eureka stockade would have rolled in their graves. This riot, incidentally, was a one-off, and the culmination of years of the Liberal-Coalition and John Howard, and Sydney shock radio jocks, demonising Muslims and the Lebanese (who are thought to always be Muslims, when in fact, some are Christians; no surprise that racists often miss such subtleties). Neo-Liberal (so-called free market policies) had made Australians worse off, so it was no surprise that the ignorant and bigoted amongst Australians would search for a scapegoat. Envy of welfare recipients and immigrants receiving benefits, or anyone who differed from the stereotypical Australian, grew because the Murdoch press and mainstream conservative media and its moguls fanned it to deflect from what was really happening. The wealthy were transferring wealth from labour to capital (or from wages to profit), and as a result fewer and fewer resources were being allocated to the rest. So it's no surprise they began to fight each other, and resented anyone they thought was getting something without working for it. This is what laissez-faire causes.