Monday, May 25, 2009

Just who attacked the Indian student?

Early this month an Indian overseas student, Sourabh Sharma, was bashed and robbed on a Melbourne train.

Who was to blame? The Islamic Council of Victoria angrily denounced white racism against brown people as having motivated the attack. It was, fumed Nazeem Hussain, a director of the ICV, a continuing legacy of Australia's dark past:

The police need to acknowledge and loudly condemn racially targeted attacks on Indian international students.

Sourabh Sharma, an Indian international student, was travelling home on the train after a shift at KFC when he was brutally bashed and robbed by six people.

As the 21-year-old lay on the floor, being kicked in the head, face and ribs, his attackers screamed racial insults. They left him bleeding, broken-boned and crying on the floor of the train while other passengers watched and did nothing to intervene ...

I am another brown person. I can say unequivocally, on behalf of every other non-white person in the country, that hearing about racially motivated crimes frightens us.

To an aggressor bent on beating up a "fob" (fresh off the boat) or a "curry", it does not matter that I was born here, and that my parents came here long before the attacker was born ...

Last week, the Islamic Council of Victoria issued a media release noting that police had "failed to adequately address the cause of the attacks — which is racism".

In response, Superintendent Graham Kent lashed out at the council on 3AW, claiming the police were "disappointed" and that the statement was "uninformed".

... The police are charged with upholding the law and fighting crime, whatever its causes. There is little benefit in denying the existence of racist attitudes in our communities.

Sure, the question of racism is something that, as a society, we often feel uncomfortable confronting, given our dark past ...

Where have we seen police addressing the racist aggressors? ... there has been no real, tangible response to this pattern of violent racism. The police are not responsible for defeating the disease of racism by themselves — the problem falls on all of our shoulders, particularly those of our leaders.

But what we can demand from police is a loud, vehement condemnation of racial intolerance. Victoria Police should not hesitate to do this ...

... the Government, police and Connex need to begin a campaign to fight racial intolerance.


But was Sourabh Sharma a victim of white racism? The police didn't think so:

Det-Sen Constable Buttigieg said the thugs did abuse him [Sourabh] while they kicked him to the head and ribs although their primary motivation was robbery.

"I think there was a mention where there was a comment similar to `why don't you go home?' but there was nothing more," he said.

"I think the motivation would have been robbery."


Better evidence, though, comes from the CCTV footage. There are four attackers visible in the footage. Two have their faces uncovered. Here is a still image of one of the young men (in a green T-shirt) who attacked Sourabh Sharma:



He's certainly not white. In fact, he looks as if he could be South Asian. Here's an image of the second attacker:



He's certainly not Anglo and probably not European either. There is, in fact, no-one in the CCTV footage who can readily be identified as a white person:

video

So what is going on here? Why would white Australians and white society be condemned for something they appear to have had no part in?

I suspect the answer has to do with politics. There's a fashionable idea on the left that whites invented the concept of race in order to gain an unearned privilege by oppressing others. Therefore, whites are held to be uniquely guilty of preventing the emergence of human equality.

If you believe this theory then you will look for instances in which whites are the violent aggressors and non-whites are the oppressed victims. It is these cases which will seem to prove your point.

It's convenient for the Islamic Society to follow along. It means that they are assumed to be the aggrieved victims of discrimination seeking redress. It means too that the established society loses a sense of its own legitimacy and its own interests.

It's not difficult to challenge the filtered view of reality. The image of the white racist oppressor breaks down not only when the perpetrators can be shown to be non-white, as in the attack on Sourabh Sharma, but more so when the victims of such aggressive violent crimes are white.

Just today it was reported that a young Anglo-Australian man was stabbed to death in Melbourne by several Asian men. He had stepped in to defend someone they were trying to attack. Later on, the Asian men caught up with him at a convenience store and murdered him.

This is part of a pattern of recent street violence in Melbourne. The victims have been overwhelmingly young Anglo men, who have been either stabbed or bashed to death by gangs of men of some other ethnicity.

And if the pattern of street violence doesn't fit the theory? Do we then close our eyes to a part of reality to make the theory work or do we reject the theory as false, as being unreasonably biased against one group alone?

88 comments:

  1. As Fjordman put it: "You don’t necessarily have to do anything; you’re a racist simply because you’re white and breathe."

    By automatically blaming white Australians for this attack, Nazeem Hussain exposes his own anti-white prejudice. Whites must be guilty, for we all know that they are evil and intolerant. Racism is purely a white problem. People of colour are only ever victims, and never perpetrators of racism. Indeed, people of colour are incapable of such a thing.

    An Indian student was bashed on a Melbourne train, so it must be another instance of white-on-non-white racial violence. There is simply no other explanation. Never mind that a disportionate number of assaults on public transport appear to be committed by non-whites. Irrelevant! Whites are guilty. There can be no question.

    In fact, there is no need for a proper investigation. For the Islamic Council of Victoria has already decreed that white racism was the cause of attacks. If the police don't concur, then they are simply in denial about the full extent of "racist attitudes in our communities" - "communities" being the white Australian majority.

    Sure, the question of racism is something that white Australians often feel uncomfortable confronting, given their dark past. They should really be ashamed of themselves for... well.. existing. The sooner they are replaced by non-white immigrants, the better. Only until they have been completely replaced will the scourge of racism be erased.

    Viva the multicultural utopia in which non-white and non-white, Indian and South Asian, Aborigine and African, Arab and Persian, live together in perfect harmony and peace!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nazeem Hussain claims the victim was left "on the floor" but the video shows he never left his seat. An Islamic spokesperson guilty of fabricating facts? It wouldn't be a first...

    Indians may be being targeted, but he can't claim to speak in fear "on behalf of every other non-white person in the country" because at least two of the attackers are non-white. To speak of "racism" and "on behalf of every... non-white" implies that whites are the attackers. But the video shows no white attackers.

    However, one of group may be white - the white hooded one who walked away when the beating began. The picture gives the impression the white guy is about to attack the coloured guy.

    But whatever the makeup of this gang, it's true that young white males are the most frequent victim of racist attacks, as you point out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Miles, I hadn't seen the photo you link to. It does show another gang member, the one who walked away and loitered near the door of the train, who is white.

    Still, the point remains that we are not talking about a gang of whites beating up an Indian student. There are at least two members of the gang who are clearly non-European, and the gang member in the green T-shirt even appears to be South Asian.

    Perhaps it will turn out that we are dealing with a multicultural gang.

    Anonymous, a well-expressed comment, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Does it matter what race or colour any of them are-perpetrators or victim? The former are cowardly thieving thugs and the latter a vulnerable innocent who like the rest of us had the right to travel home on public transport without having to worry about being attacked Bring back lots of plain clothes undercover policing in pairs The minute someone uses abusive language or attempts an assault or theft arrest them and have backup to take them to the nearest police station waiting at the next stop.The officers should keep tha mobile phone running to capture every sound and action for use in prosecution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for your report. I feel more reassured now that it wasn't a racially motivated attack.

    I am an Indian but I don't live in Australia. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Indians, just like any other minority community, harbour a persecution complex wherein any wrongdoing is automatically attributed to a member of the majority community.

    My brother lives in Australia and he has only nice things to say about the people there.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Does it matter what race or colour any of them are-perpetrators or victim?Nazeem Hussain and the ICV brought race into the equation when they rushed to blame white racism for this attack, despite not even being aware of the particulars of the case.

    Hussain, the ICV and their acolytes in the racial minority grievance industry would have us believe that racism is simply a white problem, and that non-European peoples are utterly incapable of harbouring racial hatred or committing racially-motivated violence.

    However, as Mark points out, the attackers in this particular case were also non-white. Moreover, in many cases it is white Australians who are the victims of violent crimes committed by non-whites. Yet, there is no outcry at the very real non-white on white violence occurring in our cities.

    And that is the problem with the multicultural utopia that our elites have engineered for us. Everybody likes to talk about how wonderfully "diverse" Australia is becoming, but nobody is prepared to tackle the dark side of diversity, such as non-white crime or the palpable racial hatred many non-European minorities harbour toward white Australians.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There's a fashionable idea on the left that whites invented the concept of race in order to gain an unearned privilege by oppressing others. Therefore, whites are held to be uniquely guilty of preventing the emergence of human equality. You are not representing your opponents' views with much honesty here.

    Firstly, the notion of race did emerge in its most elaborate form in Europe. This wasn't done to obtain 'privilege' or other such nonsense, but to justify brutality at the expense of colonised peoples. It's a recurring pattern you can find in relation to England, Nazi Germany, imperialist France, fascist Italy, etc. There's overwhelming evidence that this was the case, and I am quite happy to point you to numerous references if you think otherwise.

    Secondly, whilst it's quite possible to find examples of various kinds of non-white racism, there is no historical precedent for the racism exhibited by Europe toward the rest of the world. Remember, by the 19th century, pretty much the entire world (with a couple of notable exceptions) was the property of one European power or another. This might give you some idea as to why the ideologies underepinning European racism are of somewhat more interest than racism by Inuits or Khmers.

    Finally, as you know full well, 'diversity' has always been evident in Australia, from the time of the Aboriginals onwards. It cannot be got rid of. What we are seeing today, albeit, in the form of limited, localised examples (Cronulla, Camden), are thick-headed would-be brownshirts trying to impinge on the rights of those they see as the enemy (typically Muslims or middle-easterners). There people, whilst on the margins, have nonetheless formed organised groups to further their cause. Can you point us to any nascent fascist groups run by Vietnamese or Somalians that are promoting racist hate, or is post yet another ugly exercise in quashing strawmen and pinning moral responsibility exclusively to minorities?

    ReplyDelete
  8. the writer obviously thinks that by closing his eyes all the warts of aussie society will dissapear. Whites are racist, some are overtly , while most are closet racists ;and i am sure you are one of the closet ones. The solution for this is plain and simple, if the police are also hands in gloves with the racists , the indian students should arm themselves and i am sure a few racists shot through their balls ,will bring the aussie police to their toes very fast. self defence is the only option.

    ReplyDelete
  9. THR, I do agree that your presentation of the leftist view on race is a little more nuanced than mine - but then again mine was limited to less that 40 words whereas yours is 120.

    But there is no "straw man". I wrote that the leftist theory holds that whites invented the concept of race. You don't put it quite this strongly; you state that the most elaborate form of racism came from Europe.

    I wrote that the left holds that whites invented race to gain an unearned privilege over non-white others. You don't appear to like the terminology, but you assert that white racism was intended to justify brutality and colonial property rights against the non-white other.

    I wrote that the left holds that whites are uniquely guilty of racism. You don't put it this strongly, but you write that there is no historical precedent for white racism.

    Then, just to confirm that I am not arguing against a straw man, along comes an anonymous commenter directly after you, who has gotten the leftist message loud and clear, who asserts as a general rule that "whites are racists" and that shooting a few would help solve the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  10. THR, I'll respond more specifically to some of your claims.

    The issue of race is more complex than the way you describe it. Yes, theories of race were elaborated more in Europe than elsewhere, but then so were a lot of things. The Europeans went through a period of attempting to describe all things scientifically in a way that other cultures didn't.

    What was the attitude of Europeans toward other races? It varied a lot. There were those who romanticised other races (the noble savage) and compared the physique and culture of other peoples favourably to their own. There were Christians whose views toward other races was influenced by the view that we are all made in God's image and invested with a soul. There were some, even early on, who took a paternalistic view and whose sense of charity was directed to non-whites. There were some who had a kind of intellectual curiousity about non-whites. There were some who used non-whites to bolster whatever intellectual theory they were pushing at home. There were some who thought it their mission to spread a white civilisation to other peoples. And, yes, there were some who thought that whites were superior and should therefore predominate.

    Then there is the issue of colonisation. First, whites are not the only ones who have been colonisers. At times, we have been the colonised. The Turks, for instance, held signifcant areas of southern Europe as colonies for some centuries. The Mongols held Russia for some centuries, a period of time called the Tatar yoke.

    In fact, in historic terms, whites have often come off second best. There appear to have once been white peoples residing in parts of Eurasia and the Middle East. They did not survive, being overcome by other races.

    Then there is your point about diversity. As you well know, Australia began as an Anglo-Celtic nation and remained so in its population until after WWII. If this changed, it wasn't because of some faceless, irresistable historic necessity but because the political class were determined to force a change.

    Thr, I don't think there are too many violent supremacist groups in Australia, either among whites or non-whites. There is a Muslim gang in Sydney which might qualify; maybe there are some white individuals, but I'm not familiar with any.

    Finally, I think you've read this site well enough to know that I don't hold minorities responsible for what I think is wrong in Australia but white liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "...the ideologies underpinning European racism are of somewhat more interest than racism by Inuits or Khmers..."

    The early to mid 20th century facist movements in Europe are indeed text book cases of racism. The 17th-19th century imperial conquests somewhat less so. But perhaps a more balanced analysis of the phenomenon of racism around the world would argue that racism is a scourge of humanity itself - not simply the Europeans.

    For instance we could draw on examples such as the Japanese imperial push in the mid 20th century or the Han Chinese in contemporary Tibet. Or the Iranian Government's widely publicized desire to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. Or Magabe's vendetta against white farmers or even Hugo Chavez' recent tirades against the Gringoes. But you, my learned friend, seem strangely uninterested in those kinds of examples. I Can't say I blame you though. It's much easier and far more fashionable these days - to simply blame the racist evil whiteys for all the world's ills.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Firstly, re. "It's a recurring pattern you can find in relation to England, Nazi Germany, imperialist France, fascist Italy, etc." let's add the Armenian Genocide, the Rape of Nanking, the Sandakan Death Marches, The Three Alls Policy, the Assyrian Genocide and the Greek genocide just to even up THR's one sided diet of examples. That particular point of yours doesn't look so flash with that little etc of yours expanded as such does it THR?

    Secondly, "Remember, by the 19th century, pretty much the entire world (with a couple of notable exceptions) was the property of one European power or another. I suppose by "notable exception" THR means something like the Ottoman Empire which at the height of its power in 16-17th century "spanned three continents, controlling much of Southeastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa." That empire didn't dissolve till 1922. With exceptions like that one really gets the idea that THR is either an ignoramus or duplicitous. Which is it THR?

    Finally, if "...'diversity' has always been evident in Australia, from the time of the Aboriginals onwards." then it begs the question...when has diversity not been evident ever in the entire history of mankind. In which case THR has demonstrated 100% of nothing.

    Further what is that THR accuses the people of Camden of? Excercising their civic right (nay duty) to object to building developments foist with disregard on their community? If this is now the equivalent of being a "brownshirt" then how does THR classify the Indonesians in East Timor, the Sudanese in conjunction with the Janjaweed in Darfur, or the Tamils in Sri Lanka as just a few recent examples?

    It is quite obvious that what ails THR and other leftists like him is a chronic case of psychological projection. What they see in their mirror really is as ugly as they say we are.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think they are Tamil or Samoan suspects.

    ReplyDelete
  14. White or brown or black is not the matter. Your policing is bad. That is the point. For a country with very less population like Australia policing could be better. And you cannot totally deny there is no racism. See the latest news: http://www.rediff.com/news/report/2009/may/27/australia-indian-student-attacked-critical.htm
    And Indians are themselves to be blamed for this to some extent. Nowadays many good colleges are available in India and there are many jobs being generated too. You should not go to a country where you are not welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bolt dealt with this subject here as well. It is well worth reading the linked articles as well here and here.From the second article titled "African youth gangs assault taxi drivers" Police will not officially acknowledge any particular ethnic group is a target, or that any other group is carrying out the crimes.

    But in every case the victims told police their attackers were African and there was always more than one. Knives are the weapon in most taxi robberies reported to police, but meat cleavers and screw drivers have also been used.
    Bolt's point is, and to which I concur, that if the perpertrators of these crimes were white The Age would go out of its way to identify the assailants as white. Tim Blair has identified this phenomena in the leftist media, such as the Sydney Morning Herald, as the Men of No Appearance. Anyone who is a fair and regular reader of the Herald would know that if the perps were of Middle Eastern appearance then there will be no racial description of the attackers. Whenever a white person is involved in a crime though the Herald will always give the racial profile. I recommend you read that second link for the reader's letter to the SMH and its response on the subject of the 'no appearance/appearance' of racial characteristics being reported depending on the perpetrators race.

    So, by the fact that this violent crime wave against Indians in Melbourne is being reported with no racial characteristics described, we can confidently conclude that the great majority of assailants are not in point of fact white. Otherwise The Age would have told us so.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Totally agree with the last Anon. Policing in Victoria and NSW is uniformly weak and motivated first and foremost with PC concerns. This is exacerbated by the judiciaries which have fallen under the power of the 'perpetrator as victim mindset'.

    As a result, the weak and peaceful are common prey now. Indians, imo, are generally intelligent, resourceful, productive and peaceful. This guarantees that they are a target to those of the opposite characteristics. Their attackers racial characteristics are known , but not reported.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks for your response, Mark. I answer in 2 comments:

    Thanks for your response, Mark.

    I wrote that the leftist theory holds that whites invented the concept of race. It's technically a correct statement, but an awkward way of putting it. 'Race' did emerge as a concept from Europe, despite the fact that it developed elsewhere. There's also an argument that places like Japan, for instance, modeled themselves on European-style chauvinism, and adopted imperialism as a consequence of contact with European racism. The Japanese had, after all, seen how their neighbours had been treated by the Europeans.

    you assert that white racism was intended to justify brutality and colonial property rights against the non-white other.I don't see how this statement is at all controversial. We are talking about thoroughgoing racism here, not merely an offensive joke here or there. This stuff isn't so distant to us, either. Aboriginal Australians only relatively recently got the vote. The Jim Crows laws were still around in the 50s. There's a very long history of racism and oppression by Europeans against other 'races', which is why, like it or not, it is different for a white American to use the word 'nigger' than for a black American to use the word 'cracker'. One is inextricably linked to a history of slavery and lynchings, the other is not. This isn't to say that black-on-white racism is acceptable, merely that it is of an order of magnitude lesser.


    What was the attitude of Europeans toward other races? It varied a lot. I agree - I think this is a fair point. (Incidentally, it's one covered at length by Edward Said in his Orientalism, loathed by the right). What I disagree with is this notion that the European construction of 'race' was benign, even where it was Christian, or romantic, for instance. 'Race' was not a purely academic concept over most of the last 200 years - constructions of race were used as the ideological props of slavery and colonisation. Your point about the Turks and Mongols is correct - they did invade other lands. But where is the evidence that they did so with reference to anything like the modern conception of race, that was so influential in how Europeans treated the natives around the world?

    Then there is your point about diversity. As you well know, Australia began as an Anglo-Celtic nation and remained so in its population until after WWII. If this changed, it wasn't because of some faceless, irresistable historic necessity but because the political class were determined to force a change.But this is already a sleight of hand. Australian Aboriginals, prior to settlement, had different languages, geographical territories, lifestyles, etc. The diversity was there from the outset. 'Aboriginals' (nice latin term that it is!) only constitute a unity in so far as this was conferred by white settlers. This is not entirely different, in conceptual terms, to how it was 1930s fascists who defined precisely who was and wasn't a Jew. The unity didn't necessarily exist prior to racists forming the category.

    Furthermore, the conjunction 'Anglo-Celtic' is another furphy in this context, since the Anglos and the Celtics by no means saw themselves as a shared race or culture. Again, they came from different lands, had different religions, and arguably, different languages. Now, you can take some step of abstraction back from this and object on the grounds that both the Anglos and the Celtics were Christian, or Europeans, but you could take the exact same step with every diverse grouping. We know that the Irish, and Aboriginal Australians, faced enormous racism throughout the country's history. This racism persisted with the Chinese, who were here since at least the 1850s gold rush, and continued with Southern Europeans, Vietnamese, and now extends to Middle Easterners and Africans.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hanson claimed that the nation was at risk of Asians taking over - does anybody seriously believe as much now? Does anybody think her statement to be anything but racist? Doesn't her statement have more to do with her, than with the object of her scorn? We surely wouldn't conduct an empirical investigation of the nature of Jews, for instance, in order to verify whether or not anti-Semitic stereotypes are correct, yet some on this thread seem to think it perfectly legitimate to try to demonstrate that some races 'really' are aggressive, unable to be 'assimilated', etc.


    I don't think there are too many violent supremacist groups in Australia, either among whites or non-whites. There is a Muslim gang in Sydney which might qualify;Yes, there are gangs formed along ethnic lines, but nothing like political groups such as the Australian Protectionist Party, or the Australia First Party, which are our equivalent to the BNP. Such groups are merely a more gentrified version of the fascists of old, and I'm struggling to see how some of the positions on this thread differ from them in any substance.

    And for what it's worth, I think it entirely correct that you critique the conceits of liberalism, and the illusion of autonomy, and the all-too-easy platitudes of 'tolerance'. I disagree that this should lead us to lapse into retrograde positions on racial homogeneity and the like.


    Pat,
    if you wish to include the Ottomans along with the rest of Europeans imperialists, then fine by me. It doesn't change my fundamental point. Asia, South America, Australia, and Africa were all under the yoke of European colonisation.

    Further what is that THR accuses the people of Camden of? Excercising their civic right (nay duty) to object to building developments foist with disregard on their community? If this is now the equivalent of being a "brownshirt" then how does THR classify the Indonesians in East Timor, the Sudanese in conjunction with the Janjaweed in Darfur, or the Tamils in Sri Lanka as just a few recent examples?As for Camden, if these people represent you, then you are surely more to be pitied than despised:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxooABFsBlY

    Further, I'm not sure how citing acknowledged atrocities elsewhere in the world (such as in East Timor) justifies bigotry here. Are you saying you'd be more comfy in Sudan, Pat?

    As for projection - if you're going to use psychoanalytic terms, please learn to use them properly:
    http://lacomplaintedupartisan.blogspot.com/2007/10/abuse-and-misuse-of-language.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. THR, I merely balanced your bias by expanding your etc and putting it in an historical context. I don't wish to make broad racist generalisations like you do. Again, you are projecting your own racism. That was the intent of your examples, not mine.

    I'm saying you would be comfy in Sudan THR. You equate normal citizens exercising their right to vote against building construction in their communities with genocidal maniacs. You seem to be a tyrant and fascist by your own standards. Or are you ignorant of the atrocities I cited? If so then just plead "ignoramus" as I suggested was one of your only two options.

    "In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism where a person's personal attributes, unacceptable or unwanted thoughts, and/or emotions are ascribed onto another person or people." [citation] I believe this perfectly captures your initial accusatory, defamatory and anti-white/european (read racist in your speak)post, regardless of whether you feel the term is being utilised correctly or not.

    ReplyDelete
  20. THR said: "Furthermore, the conjunction 'Anglo-Celtic' is another furphy in this context, since the Anglos and the Celtics by no means saw themselves as a shared race or culture. Again, they came from different lands, had different religions, and arguably, different languages. Now, you can take some step of abstraction back from this and object on the grounds that both the Anglos and the Celtics were Christian, or Europeans, but you could take the exact same step with every diverse grouping."

    The problem with your argument is that is assumes that there was never any significant intermixing between the English and Irish in Australia. You assume that the ethnic divides which characterised early colonial Australian society remained unbridged by the 20th Century. This is incorrect. By the early 20th Century, the various ethnic differences between the English, Irish, Scottish etc. in Australia had been larged submerged in a shared British-Australian identity, resulting in a largely homogenized composite population. That is why, today, the typical white Australian more than likely has both English and Irish ancestry.

    "We know that the Irish, and Aboriginal Australians, faced enormous racism throughout the country's history. This racism persisted with the Chinese, who were here since at least the 1850s gold rush, and continued with Southern Europeans, Vietnamese, and now extends to Middle Easterners and Africans."

    Please, spare us the standard leftist jermiads about how badly Anglos have treated other groups. We've heard it all before, and quite frankly, it is a gross exaggeration.

    The reality is that evil Anglo-Australia has accepted more disparate immigrants in a shorter period of time than probably any other society has done peacefully in human history. We have lavished these newcomers with benefits far beyond anything they would have received in their old countries. We have done so at the expense of own our people, effectively giving away our country to foreigners. Yet Anglo-Australia is still rountinely accused of "racism and xenophobia". Talk about ingratitude.

    (Oh, and by the way, I'm of Irish descent.)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Edward, you make my points for me.

    Yes, the Anglos and the Celts intermingled. However, they were initially 'diverse'. They were not a unified group in the beginning, and only became so over time. I'm sure at the time, there would have been some who objected to such intermingling.
    Furthermore, since that time, every other kind of 'intermingling' has also occurred. You can walk down a suburban street in Australia, and see Italians arm-in-arm with Chinese. In a few years, the established groups may feel the same way about Lebanese and Somalians, in all likelihood, which will only make current race-related panic seem all the more ridiculous.

    And please, spare us the talk of 'ingratitude'. Only a fool or liar would seriously contend that Australia's history is devoid of serious and ongoing racism. And only a slave would be expected to show 'gratitude' whilst getting kicked at the same time. If you cannot come to grips with your own country's history, that is your problem, but do not expect the history books to change to contend with your cowardice and inadequacy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. THR, why don't you do us all a favour , stop repeating your tiresome nonsense such as "Only a fool or liar would seriously contend that Australia's history is devoid of serious and ongoing racism." and nominate for us all here those nations devoid of 'racism' throughout history.

    These must be real nations and not just fantasy lands you and your comrades dreamed up at your last Wymins Studies tutorial. Real, historical, actual nations that you can contrast with Australia as being the best of type so that we may understand how we are the worst of type. Educate us.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Pat, you could do us all a favour and stop the 'Look over there!' act, and thereby cease trying to excise moral culpability from yourself and your nation.

    ReplyDelete
  24. THR, your arguments lose any persuasive power they may have when you play the man, not the ball. If you feel strongly about a particular topic such as racism - and even if you feel you have every justification to do so - calling people cowards and bigots etc doesn't help to convince those sitting on the fence in a debate to swing to your point of view.

    It's even less likely to lead others who hold contrary views to your own to try to see things your way - which is, I hope, the main reason you are participating in these discussions.

    You obviously have a very considerable general knowledge and interest in history and politics which is shared by many of the participants here and I don't want to sound like I'm lecturing you. But please don't waste that knowledge by engaging in ad hominem.

    ReplyDelete
  25. What are you talking about THR, you make no sense. You've come on here all bluster and hot air waving your hands about like a senile geriatric cursing all and sundry for imagined ancient slights that no one has the faintest idea what you're on about.

    Calm down old fella, catch your breath and when you have, just simply tell us about these Shangri-la civilisations that existed devoid of all hatred and racism. We're waiting. At least name one dear leader won't you before we all conclude that your just a sanctimonious sack of...ill wind.

    ReplyDelete
  26. THR, I get the impression that you don't even know what your actual point is.

    First you assert that the term "Anglo-Celtic" is inappropriate because the English and the Irish in Australia were two separate and distinct groups.

    But then you turn around and proclaim that, yes, there was admixture between the English and the Irish in Australia, and that this just shows that groups of people from anywhere in the world, mixed together in any numbers and proportions whatsoever, will eventually settle down together into a harmonious society.

    Call me biased, but I would argue that there is a big difference between absorbing an already largely Anglicized Irish minority and trying to absorb a never-ending wave of diverse immigrants from all over the world, the vast majority of whom come from vastly different racial and cultural backgrounds to the host population.

    As for your jejune little rant about "racist" Anglo-Australia, I second Pat Hannagan's call for you to name a single country which has been completely devoid of racism throughout its history. Just one will suffice.

    Moreover, if you can find a single non-Western nation which has opened its doors to mass immigration from all over the world, such as Australia has done, please let me know. Last time I checked, the vast majority of the world's nations practiced discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity to keep out dissimilar groups. Surely the racism displayed by the rest of the world's nations in terms of their restrictive immigration policies warrants strong condemnation.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Yes, the Anglos and the Celts intermingled. However, they were initially 'diverse'. They were not a unified group in the beginning, and only became so over time. I'm sure at the time, there would have been some who objected to such intermingling."

    I guess the point here is that, unlike, say, the Aborigines or the Chinese, the Irish were able to be largely absorbed into the Anglo-Australian majority because they were ethnically and culturally similiar.

    The ethnic differences between the English majority and the Irish minority began to disappear after a few generations and, by the 20th Century, had been largely replaced by a shared British-Australian identity. The same cannot be said for the Aboriginals, despite the best efforts of authorities to encourage assimilation.

    This seems to indicate to me that there is a racial barrier to assimilation, and that the idea that non-European groups, such as the Chinese, Lebanese and Somalians, can be assimilated just as European groups were runs contrary to historical experiences both in Australia and elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The above comment is mine, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  29. All i can say is that the whites are targetting indian community... if thats not the case why aren't the other asian communities are not being attacked..... Indians are jus worried abt gettin their permanent residency and hence remain calm without reacting back

    ReplyDelete
  30. That last comment takes the cake for most imbecilic comment in this thread, if not the entire intertube. The logic is thus:

    z is unmolested
    Therefore x is targeting y

    Anonymous Friday, 29 May 2009 6:02:00 PM EST I declare you victorious over the champion THR in the most idiotic racist statement thus far.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Bolt has the subject covered.Quote from Indian victims:

    Tanveer and Nusrat…
    4th of Jan Sunday Night at 11.30m…

    When i turned on anderson road i saw 4 black men standing over there . They were blocking my way i requested them way they started abusing me and my wife nasir . I kept low i preffered to step on the road and go around them as i walked bit further one of them came running behind us and hit me with the stick . Then they started hitting my wife . And man handeled her my wife escaped and ran for help on the road while they were beeting me .... I want action against those african guys . I want them arrested and punished So that they dont touch any lady again."
    That's right, the perps were...drum roll please (Victorian Police, please don't shout down the facts, or beat up law abiding white citizens for stating the truth) ....brrrrrr....rrrrrr....

    BLACK!!!!!AFRICAN!!!!Shocked,
    Stunned,
    Dismayed,
    Shocked.I.Am.

    Only white people are racist.

    Aren't they??

    THR, please set us straight. There must be some way that the Africans aren't culpable for their actions. Has colonialism addled their pure non-violent DNA. Are all white people guilty for African violence. Is this our blood libel?

    Why are you silent THR, we need your comradely indoctrination. Four legs good, two legs better, baaaaahhhhh.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Is it just me or has this topic caused quite a bit of intense debate?

    Speaking as someone who has friends with African ethnic background here in Australia I can tell you that they openly admit that "Aussies" [anglo-celts] and Indians are targets for them.

    This is not a secret, talk to any teenager from a diverse suburb and you will find its common knowledge.

    Vietnamese and Chinese are known to stick together and look after their own, as are "Lebs" [really any middle eastern].

    To a lesser extent the same applies to Greeks and Italians. Islanders seem to be able to look after themselves.

    But Indians and anglo-celts are the ones seen as soft targets. They are the ones picked out and picked on.

    So blaming one very commonly victimised group for the problems encountered by another commonly victimised group is insane to say the least, and speaks to possible biases or preconceptions in the reporters worldviews.

    It doesnt really matter who did what to whom in the 19th century, the issue is the streets of Melbourne today. And why your friends and relatives are seen as easy targets.

    any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Westieboy,

    I think Anglo culture is going to have to change.

    There was once an ideal amongst Anglo men that you should fight one on one, against someone your own size, with your fists alone and stop when you'd knocked the other man down. It was thought cowardly to do otherwise.

    It was a good ideal when the rules were respected. But it's now a losing strategy. We have to make young Anglo men aware that they are likely to picked out as soft targets and that they should travel in groups with mates they can rely on to watch their backs. They should also be careful about getting drunk and mouthing off, as some cultures think this is much worse (an affront to honour) than ganging up on and bashing someone (which to the Anglo mind is cowardly).

    ReplyDelete
  35. THR, please set us straight. There must be some way that the Africans aren't culpable for their actions. Has colonialism addled their pure non-violent DNA. Are all white people guilty for African violence. Is this our blood libel? Pat, you seem to be having difficulty in engaging in honest debate. I'll ask you one thing, though - why is your own narcissism so intensely bound up with an Australia that is as white as the driven snow, in more ways than one?


    Westieboy, I live in a neighbourhood with lots of African refugees, particularly Ethiopians. I do see many of the adolescents, from the high-rise government flats, running amok on the streets, though I walk about on my own, and have never been targeted for any kind of violence.
    I don't think we can let thugs off the hook for their actions, and I don't think anybody is advocating that we do. I think part of our responsibility in taken in refugees is to ensure that we support them properly. Contrary to popular belief, refugees don't exactly have lives of luxury once getting to Australia. Social structures that kept kids in check back in Africa (such as extended family members keeping a watchful eye on things) have totally broken down for these kids in Australia. Many families are fatherless, and many kids (and parents) have experienced horrific trauma.
    This doesn't mean refugees should have a green light to commit assault. I think we need to look at what we can do to stop kids from these flats (and it isn't just Africans who are the problem here) from going off the rails. Also, if you walk around Melbourne's west, for instance, you'll see that the overwhelming majority of Africans are honest, law-abiding people, toiling away in mostly low-paid, blue collar jobs, trying to make better lives for their families. I think that's worth acknowledging.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I think Anglo culture is going to have to change.I would argue that the inability or unwillingness of Anglo-Australians to compete in the tribal war zone that is modern multicultural Australia is due to the complete lack of ethnocentricism among peoples of Northern European origin.

    As Andrew Fraser observed: "Australians, like other ethnic groups tracing their ancestry to North-western Europe, are predisposed to individualism, exogamy and small nuclear families and, as a consequence, display a relative lack of ethnocentrism."

    This puts them at a distinct disadvantage because, as Fraser notes, "unlike other racial, ethnic or religious groups well-equipped to practice the politics of identity, white Australians lack a strong, cohesive sense of ethnic solidarity."

    ReplyDelete
  37. A racist is a person who wins an argument against a multiculturalist.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "The problems are in white areas like Sutherland Shire where people have no contact with cultural difference and form stereotyped views." ~ SMHThis is further evidence that white Australians are actually excluded from the concept of multiculturalism. According to people like Adele Horin, "Anglo" enclaves are places of bigoted ignorance where as other ethnic enclaves are places of enlightenment inhabited by deracinated cosmopolitans. I've heard 3rd generation Greeks and Italians STILL refer to themselves as "ethnic" rather than just "Australians" - yet no white Australia would refer to themselves as an "ethnic" and are as such, excluded from multiculturalism and any white enclaves are simply a hang over from the evil racist Howard times that require more diversity foisted upon them.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Unfortunately, Mark appears to have attracted some fans from the ratbag right to whom I alluded earlier.

    In any case, I have to again disagree, Mark, with your comments re: Anglos and crime. You may know some teachers or youth workers. They should be able to tell you that Anglo kids also form pseudo-gangs that run amok. Think of that 14-year old kid who got shot by the police in Northcote.
    Somebody asked what relevance the 19th Century has to this discussion. I think this is typified in the notion of the 'Anglo mind', that is supposedly nobler and less criminal than all the others.
    The empirical evidence doesn't support this notion. England and Ireland had plenty of hardcore crims long before multiculturalism was invented. When an Anglo commits a serious crime, his ethnicity is never mentioned, or at issue. When anybody commits a crime, we are supposed to believe that it is the byproduct of some biological or cultural determinism.

    Again, look at all the bikies causing trouble. Look at how many underworld figures are bona fide 'Anglo-Celtics'. Melbourne has a long tradition of this, from Squizzy Taylor, to Carl Williams and the Morans. So much for cultural assimilation.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hi.

    I am an Indian, and i would like to make a few comments.

    First, you are right-the attackers do not seem to be a racial group--if anything, they (or at least most of them)seem to hail from South-Asia or south-east asia.

    Second, i agree with you that people keep talking of 'white' racism, as if whites invented it.
    I believe whites invented not the act, but the word 'racism', thus showing that they were the only ones who thought that racism, i.e. group mentality or tribalism was wrong. This went hand in hand with an increased understanding of human rights and individual liberty--all of which are the gifts of the western civilization to the world. I should know-- Indian freedom fighters (the finest in the world) fought for India against the British, but wanted a Constitution based on modern ideals of individual liberty and justice--stuff that you wouldn't get either in medieval Europe, or in Asia or Africa. Hence their constitution contained principles from USA, France, Britain. Today I am witnessing the fight in India between rule of law and individual freedom on one side, and on the other, the traditional, linguistic, regional groups who came into existence before the ideas of freedom and individual liberty, and who seek to undermine them and the Indian constitution.

    If Asians are against racism and are for individual liberty, then they have to support it against every fanatical racist, without looking at the color of the criminal. If they only fight white racism, then isn't that itself racist?

    My question to you white guys is this:
    Western civilization advanced in human rights not by upholding traditions, but by challenging their own traditions and prejudices--by individuals standing up against 'their people'. I consider this to be the real source of advancement, both material and spiritual, in the west, not because there are no racists or sexists or religious fanatics, but because west is the place where an individual can hope to fight them--no one (except maybe some conservatives *ahem) will tell him/her "you do not identify with your roots", or "you are a confused desi" (a term given by indians to those indians who dare to challenge/question their traditions).
    West is the place where individual is protected by enforced law against his/her pre-modern tribe, be they conservative religious group(christian/hindu/muslim/whatever), or ethnic identities.

    You are advanced not because of people who protected your tribal mentalities, but because of people who challenged them.
    Shouldn't you be defending that instead of trying to destroy the advances of the west by copying the group-mentality of the less developed societies?
    If the west becomes like the less developed by adopting group-tactics and retaliating against individuals, then haven't the west lost ultimately?

    What are you defending--just your color, or your advanced way of life?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Heretic, interesting comment.

    Until the mid-twentieth century Australia managed to be advanced without giving up all forms of traditional identity and and all kinds of traditional goods.

    Since then, though, we have had a more advanced form of liberal individualism in which the only good recognised as an organising principle of society is individual autonomy (as codified through individual rights etc).

    Have we become more advanced since then? I think not. Crime has gone up, the male wage has declined, fertility is below replacement, culture has become more coarse, high culture has declined severely, hours of work have increased, divorce has increased, drug use has increased and levels of happiness are less now than in the 1970s.

    What has improved noticeably are the more insignificant things: there is a wider range of takeaway food, the shopping malls are bigger, plane travel is cheaper etc.

    So I can't accept the way you frame the issue. I don't think it's a case that ethnic equals backward (think of the Japanese who modernised so rapidly in the 1970s and 80s without giving up their ethnic existence).

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "West is the place where individual is protected by enforced law against his/her pre-modern tribe"

    That is a fair observation, however those laws are now being used against us by people who are not from any related 'pre-modern tribe' and therein lies the danger.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anglo blokes are going to have to start banding together, as I am sure indian blokes will.

    Its about self defence, thats all.

    I like Heretics comment about the idea of "White racism" being itself racist. It strikes a chord with me.

    THR still doesnt get it.

    Its not about an "anglo mind" which is supposedly better, its about banding together with members of your own ethnic group in order to survive.

    You say you live in an area where there are many africans who you say "run wild" and yet you have never been attacked, this is not really surprising. The victims of street violence are nearly always males between the ages of 14 and 21. And I assume that you have not been a part of this group recently, at least not in a diverse area.

    Why do I assume that? Because if you had grown up in a diverse lower income area you would know just how important tribal mentalities have become under multiculturalism.

    And the only group that ever gets told that having a tribal mentality is wrong would be the "aussies" or anglo celts.

    This puts our group at a distince disadvatage which leads to us being a soft target.

    And having been the victim of this system myself, please excuse me if I dont share your stance which seems as removed from everyday life for young people from my area as the moon.

    I dont hate the people who target my people, I dont have a bigotted bone in my body, but when I read stuff by people like you who piously declare that I dont have the same right to a VERY useful collective tribal identity as everyone else it makes me feel an emotion VERY much like hatred towards you and all the other self righteous university cloistered head up their own behind chatterers who made my growing up so much more difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  46. THR is a radical marxist it seems.

    Strange that he didnt mention that.

    He also has picked up the wonderous university habit of describing everyone who disagrees with him "Ignorant".

    As such its about time we simply call him the same, post such a label on him and let him get back to his university. Those of us in the real world have things to talk about.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Westie, I did grow up in a 'diverse' low-income area, and have lived most of my life in such areas. If you think forming Anglo-based 'tribal' gangs is the solution to the world's problems, then it's you who have your head up your arse.

    As for Anglos supposedly being targeted - have you got a shred of evidence that your average braindead thug can even tell the difference between a lone Anglo, and a lone Croat, Italian, German or Pole?

    My argument is that postmodern identity politics are a dead end for everybody, whether African, Asian, or Anglo. By definition, ethnic particularism cannot be the least bit inclusive, and at its worst, it least to racist white pride thugs like Mr Hodges above.

    ReplyDelete
  48. It really annoys me that the Indian news organisations have trumped this all to Caucasians being racist.

    The India's High Commissioner to Australia has announced these attacks are racist without any evidence or recourse. It is pathetic!

    The attacks on all students are opportunity attacks. Not racist.

    I sincerely hope these CCTV images spread but I guess the "racist story" has run far enough that everyone will dismiss all proper evidence that contradicts the India government and apparent racist attack victims.

    ReplyDelete
  49. And I notice all the anti-Africans among you have nothing to say about all the Anglo crims who dominate our prisons. Have a look at Melbourne's recent underworld war - not a single Asian or African was among the players. Have a look at the bikies. Have a look at Cronulla. That's ethnic, 'tribal' particularism for you.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Finally, the news just showed Indians protesting in Melbourne.
    If the news report is to be believed, the students claimed they are being targeted not because they are 'soft' marks, but due to reasons of race. But serious racism doesn't exist in Australia, according to almost everybody on this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  51. THR,

    Yes, there are Anglo crims. There are also Anglo bikie gangs.

    But what we're talking about is the recent wave of street violence amongst young men in central Melbourne.

    The pattern of this crime, with only one or two exceptions, has been a young Anglo male victim and a gang of some other ethnicity as the perpetrators.

    The only conclusions we have drawn from this are:

    a) Young Anglo men have to be aware of the dangers they face and make sure they are not soft targets (i.e. by making sure they are in a large enough group, being aware that some other cultures are more likely to attack in groups and carry weapons).

    b) It is false to promote a stereotype that it is powerful racist whites who are attacking other ethnicities - since in many cases it is young Anglo males who are the victims.

    P.S. I'm not aware of any evidence of Darrin Hodges being a "thug" - this is an ad hominem which I'd prefer to keep out of the discussion threads (the same ad hominem rule is there on your behalf too).

    ReplyDelete
  52. THR said: "As for Anglos supposedly being targeted - have you got a shred of evidence that your average braindead thug can even tell the difference between a lone Anglo, and a lone Croat, Italian, German or Pole?"

    Um, maybe because the German and Polish communities in Australia have all but disappeared.

    Admittedly, you still come across the occasional person of Croatian or Italian descent, but they are usually second or even third generation and are generally assimilated into the Anglo-Celtic majority.

    Since Australia's immigration intake shifted away from Europe, and toward Asia and the Third World in the early 1980s, the traditional European minority groups in Australia have been in terminal decline.

    One would think that in a country which places such emphasis on diversity, the loss of these long-standing European minorities would be seen as a national tragedy. Yet, I never hear multiculturalists bemoaning the demographic disappearance of the German, Ukrainian or Polish communities in Australia. Evidently they do not provide the right kind of diversity, i.e. diversity of the non-European variety.

    "My argument is that postmodern identity politics are a dead end for everybody, whether African, Asian, or Anglo."

    Uh-huh. That's why identity politics is becoming more prominent in Australia, the United States, Britain, Canada, New Zealand etc. as those countries become more diverse.

    Maybe you think identity politics are a dead-end, but I would argue that giving up your ethnic identity, as the host populations of many Western countries have largely done, is a Darwinian dead-end.

    "By definition, ethnic particularism cannot be the least bit inclusive...."

    Gee, you think?

    That's the whole reason we have distinct ethnic groups in the first place.

    And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's perfectly natural and normal. The survival of a particular ethnic group, or nation for that matter, depends precisely on it being particularist and exclusive.

    The rest of the world understands that. It's only people of European descent who seem to think that one must be "inclusive", even if it means destroying one's own ethny or nation.

    ReplyDelete
  53. THR wrote: "And I notice all the anti-Africans among you have nothing to say about all the Anglo crims who dominate our prisons. Have a look at Melbourne's recent underworld war - not a single Asian or African was among the players. Have a look at the bikies. Have a look at Cronulla. That's ethnic, 'tribal' particularism for you."

    Is it just me, or are you being especially obtuse today?

    How long have Asian and Africans been in Australia in sizeable numbers? Asians, maybe two decades. Africans have only started pouring in in large numbers during the last decade. They simply haven't had enough time to establish themselves as big wigs in the organised crime establishment, although Asians have been very prominent in the hard drug trade.

    Don't worry. I'm sure they'll soon displace Anglos from the organised crime scene, as they are doing everywhere else.

    "If the news report is to be believed, the students claimed they are being targeted not because they are 'soft' marks, but due to reasons of race. But serious racism doesn't exist in Australia, according to almost everybody on this thread."

    Have you not learnt a single thing from this discussion?

    Yes, we realise that Indians are being targetted. Maybe you didn't quite grasp this little factoid, but the rest of us with basic powers of deduction understood that Indians were being singled out. That much is clear. What is not clear, however, is who is actually perpetrating these attacks. The white Australian majority has been blamed by default, but the evidence thus far seems to suggest that it is fellow people of colour, not white Australians, who are behind these attacks on the Indians. That was the whole point of Mark's initial post.

    For a wannabe academic, you're not particularly perspicacious, are you?

    Perhaps you should stick to condemning "fascist" Israel, or warning about the dire threat that Dazza and his little band of BNP wannabes represent (I mean, seriously), or whatever it is you do on your asinine little blog.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Mark Richardson wrote: "Yes, there are Anglo crims. There are also Anglo bikie gangs."

    The real question should be whether non-European minorities are overrepresented in crime statistics compared to the European Australian majority.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Racist Australian. Australian welcome to foreigner for racist attack & for there violence target only.
    I tell to all Indian, chinese, Asia , African. Stop going to Australia.
    Australian are not good human being.
    Somebody teach to australian What is good human. Just killing student who come to australia for study reason. Bloody Australian……keep your country yourself & fulk it

    ReplyDelete
  56. Mark, I respect that you've set up a relatively free discussion space here. All the same, I feel that ad hom is entirely legitimate when applied to the white pride, would-be fascist crowd. Ad hom is seldom legitimate, but this is one of the rare cases. Do you disagree?

    Edward, there are many people in Melbourne, at least, of German, Polish, or Italian descent. I'm not sure what your point is.

    The pattern of this crime, with only one or two exceptions, has been a young Anglo male victim and a gang of some other ethnicity as the perpetrators.I thought Indians were the victims. Isn't that the whole point of the post? In any case, you're yet to produce a shred of evidence to suggest you're more likely to be assaulted by Africans/Asians than Europeans. In any country town, you'll find plenty of dodgy Anglos committing assaults, which should encourage us to look beyond racial theories of crime.


    Maybe you think identity politics are a dead-end, but I would argue that giving up your ethnic identity, as the host populations of many Western countries have largely done, is a Darwinian dead-end.Darwin didn't have in mind pasty skin and toad-in-the-hole when he came up with his theories. If you think the world will be better off for you sticking to a particular ethnic identity, then good luck to you. And good luck in trying to forge a harmonious society.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yes, we realise that Indians are being targetted. Maybe you didn't quite grasp this little factoid, but the rest of us with basic powers of deduction understood that Indians were being singled out. That much is clear. What is not clear, however, is who is actually perpetrating these attacks. The white Australian majority has been blamed by default, but the evidence thus far seems to suggest that it is fellow people of colour, not white Australians, who are behind these attacks on the Indians. That was the whole point of Mark's initial post.Let's be clear. You think African refugees did it. I'm sceptical, firstly, because Vic police have their own history of lying about minority groups, and secondly, the evidence isn't particularly clear.

    But supposing it to be the case. I don't think we should accept unlimited numbers of African refugees, with no supports, and nothing to assist them with their trauma. To the extent that we do accept them, surely we do have an obligation to assist them. If we don't, all that rather ugly stuff from their past is going to haunt them.
    And to reiterate, the vast majority of Africans come to Australia, take shitty jobs, and settle down and try to help their families. Most Ethiopians uphold 'traditional conservative' values in a way tha tthe Anglos don't. I don't think you lot should be wetting the bed about Africans being under it.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Hi,
    I just read Nazeem Hussain's piece, and nowhere does he claim that White people perpetrated this crime, or that this is a 'white' issue.

    He simply claims, from my reading, that this is an issue of racism.

    I accept this claim. I think you are just as culpable of distorting facts as you claim he is.

    ReplyDelete
  59. apart from brutal assaults on indian students in australia what worries me more that now we are seeing a large number of anti india blogs posted by australians denouncing indian culture and scoffing at them. one of the blog read that "indians do not take bath and should go back to their smellyland" my response to the bugger who posted that blog is if indians go back to their home his country will be doomed losing a major source of revenue in the times when australia is facing serious downturn.and as far as hygiene goes let me clarify that i have had many australian friends who smelled like hell even after taking bath.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "one of the blog read that "indians do not take bath and should go back to their smellyland" my response to the bugger who posted that blog is if indians go back to their home his country will be doomed losing a major source of revenue in the times when australia is facing serious downturn.and as far as hygiene goes let me clarify that i have had many australian friends who smelled like hell even after taking bath."

    This comment doesn't really dignify a response, but I think it's important to point out that the reason so many Indians choose to study in Australia, rather than at more prestigious institutions in the United States or the United Kingdom, is because they know they can apply for Australian permanent residency after they graduate.

    As Peter Wilkinson wrote in his book The Howard Legacy, "the universities market themselves as providing education but they know, and certainly their prospective applicants know, that they are marketing permanent residency visas."

    So, it seems to me that foreign students are getting a pretty good deal out of this.

    As for Australia, well the local universities/visa factories obviously benefit financially from the income stream provided by all these full fee-paying foreign students, but Australia as a whole seems to lose in that we degrade the quality of our university degrees, while also ending up with a large number of sub-standard foreign-born graduates who are effectively unemployable.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anonymous wrote:

    "I just read Nazeem Hussain's piece, and nowhere does he claim that White people perpetrated this crime, or that this is a 'white' issue."

    Why then did Nazeem Hussain write:

    "I am another brown person. I can say unequivocally, on behalf of every other non-white person in the country, that hearing about racially motivated crimes frightens us."

    This suggests that it is a brown person (victim) vs white person (perpetrator) issue. As does Hussain's comment that,

    "the question of racism is something that, as a society, we often feel uncomfortable confronting, given our dark past ..."

    Again, this suggests that the problem stems from something to do with white society and its history.

    Anonymous, there are people around the world who have assumed that it is white Australians who have perpetrated the attacks on the Indian students and there has been some fierce criticism of us because of it.

    I'll post an update on this soon.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Thr, I don't know Darrin Hodges but I've read a few items he's posted on the internet. There was nothing objectionable in what he wrote. He is welcome to comment here.

    ReplyDelete
  63. THR: "Most Ethiopians uphold 'traditional conservative' values in a way that the Anglos don't."Name the values.

    ReplyDelete
  64. It seems this guy bought the argument that Aussies are the racist ones. And maybe this guy too.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Seems these guys think Andrew Symonds looks like a monkey.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "Edward, there are many people in Melbourne, at least, of German, Polish, or Italian descent. I'm not sure what your point is."

    You should really pay more attention to demographic trends. These groups are all in decline, both in proportional and absolute terms. The shift away from traditional European sources of immigration has meant that the first generation populations are not being replenished. For example, the 2006 Census found that the number of Italian-born residents — the main non-British Isles European group in Australia — declined by nine percent in five years, dropping below 200,000 for the first time in decades.

    The Germans, another long-standing non-British Isles European group, are also in decline, with the German-born population falling even faster than the Italians. This absolute decline in the number of German-born residents is reflected in the number of German speakers in Australia, which declined a massive 24% in the years between the 2001 and 2006 Census.

    Of course, the European population as a whole in Australia, both Europe-born and of European descent, is in decline, but the long-standing non-British minority groups are declining the fastest. Which is odd, given that state-sanctioned multiculturalism originally came about ostensibly to serve the same groups which are now being demographically plowed under by the current wave of non-European arrivals.


    "Darwin didn't have in mind pasty skin and toad-in-the-hole when he came up with his theories."

    Ethnocentricism is a group survival mechanism. An ethnic group without a strong sense of solidarity is one without a future as a distinct and coherent group. Surely even you can understand that.

    As for the derogatory comments about "pasty skin" and "toad in a hole", why exactly is it that you feel the need to reduce thousands of years of British and Western ethnic and cultural heritage down to its most crude and banal level? What if I reduced thousands of years of Chinese civilisation down to jaundiced skin and fried rice? Would that be a fair representation of the Chinese and their culture?

    "If you think the world will be better off for you sticking to a particular ethnic identity, then good luck to you. And good luck in trying to forge a harmonious society."

    I was simply observing that in order to survive as a coherent and distinct group, an ethnic group needs to maintain a strong sense of identity and solidarity (I mean, do you not get this? Think about it - if nobody stuck to a particular ethnic identity, we wouldn't have distinct ethnic groups, now would we?).

    As for forging a harmonious society, perhaps you multiculturalists would like to explain how cramming together dissimilar people from all over the world is a recipe for harmony, rather than division, confusion, tribalism and conflict.

    It is no coincidence that the world's most homogeneous societies also happen to be the most peaceful, harmonious and stable ones.

    Just take the example of Australia. Can anybody honestly argue that we are a more harmonious, cohesive nation now compared to say 40 years ago when the country was far more homogeneous?

    "You think African refugees did it. I'm sceptical, firstly, because Vic police have their own history of lying about minority groups, and secondly, the evidence isn't particularly clear."

    Indeed, they have a history of lying to cover up the full extent of African crime.

    I also note that you claim that the evidence isn't clear, but that didn't stop you from blaming Anglos for these attacks. The kind of violent, train-based gang attacks which are disportionately committed by non-Anglos.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Mark Richardson wrote: "Thr, I don't know Darrin Hodges but I've read a few items he's posted on the internet. There was nothing objectionable in what he wrote. He is welcome to comment here."

    Well, apparently, Dazza and his little gang of BNP copycats are planning a Nazi-style takeover of Australia as we speak! Just ask THR.

    I find it odd that just as THR conjured up the boogey man of "teh far right" in Australia, Dazza came along. I mean, really THR, are we meant to believe that the existence of Dazza's "Australian Protectionist Party", a party which doesn't even have enough members to be registered, is somehow evidence that white Australian racism is endemic?

    If you really want an example of an actual, operating "racist" party in Australia, I suggest you look into the Chinese-run Unity Party. Some of its leaders have some pretty interesting things to say.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Mark, have you by any chance perused THR's blog? It is really quite eye opening.

    Consider this comment he made in a post about Zionism:

    "Obviously, we cannot ever accept Zionism as a legitimate solution if we are universalist and internationalist. That goes without saying."

    In other words, it is illegitimate for Israel to exist as a Jewish state, a homeland for a particular ethnocultural group.

    I wonder if these "universalist and internationalist" principles extend to other nations and groups. For example, is it illegitimate for the Palestinians to seek a homeland for their particular ethnic group? After all, an ethno-Palestinian state would hardly be universalist and internationalist, now would it? What about the other sanctioned "oppressed minorities" seeking national self-determination such as the Tibetans or Tamils? In seeking a nation of their own based on ethnicity, are they also bordering on "fascist"?

    Interestingly, THR seems to praise Iraqi nationalistic sentiment in this particular entry. I would have thought condoning Iraqi nationalists in their struggle against foreigners, or "the other", would have meant supporting a very much non-universalist and non-internationalist cause.

    ReplyDelete
  69. The scope of Aussie bashing has been widened by Lisa Pryor to include segregation at universities:

    "It's one thing for dumb thugs to be prejudiced against foreign students but what is just as disturbing is the prejudice shown to these students by local uni students who should know better... and we're the ones ignoring them, shepherding them into ghettos... Meneses has had Saudis asking why there is so little integration with locals."

    So when the facts point to a rejection of diversity, the natural response is not to reconsider the wisdom of diversity, but to bleat louder at the people. Go figure...

    ReplyDelete
  70. "Mr Rudd told Parliament yesterday the attacks on Indians in Melbourne were part of wider urban violence." (the Age)

    So this wider urban violence goes unacknowledged by politicians until Indians kick up a stink. Priorities noted, Mr Rudd.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Andrew Bolt:

    Not all victims are equalAndrew Bolt
    Tuesday, June 02, 2009 at 10:42am

    You mean that there’s some ways of being bashed that aren’t hateful?

    HATE crime could soon be an offence in Victoria as the State Government moves to crack down on violent attacks against Indian students, homosexuals and other targeted groups.So bashing an Indian student will be a hate crime, but bashing an English one not, even though both lose their teeth.

    UPDATE

    Attorney General Rob Hulls says he’s just following the example of NSW. So how have the laws there worked in reducing “hate crime”? Let’s check today’s papers:

    THE teenage victim of an alleged schoolyard bullying campaign has revealed his torment amid a culture of violence at a public high school in Sydney’s west… He said attacks between rival ethnic groups occurred at the school almost weekly, with Lebanese youths battling Asian groups both inside and outside the grounds.Hmm. Would passing yet more laws against this help?

    (Thanks to reader Kevin.)

    UPDATE 2

    If Luke Mitchell had been Asian, and his attackers not, this crime would be more deserving of punishment, according to Hulls:

    THREE suspects in the brutal stabbing murder of a good Samaritan in Melbourne early yesterday have fled overseas, Victoria Police have confirmed.

    Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Simon Overland today said there were three suspects in the murder of 29-year-old, Luke Mitchell, in Brunswick and all three had fled to Thailand.
    Or put it the other way around: Luke Mitchell’s murderers deserve less punishment because the man they killed was a white heterosexual.

    UPDATE 3

    Is Jack Donnelly the kind of (alleged) victim Hulls intends his laws to help?

    ReplyDelete
  72. For example, is it illegitimate for the Palestinians to seek a homeland for their particular ethnic group? After all, an ethno-Palestinian state would hardly be universalist and internationalist, now would it? What about the other sanctioned "oppressed minorities" seeking national self-determination such as the Tibetans or Tamils? In seeking a nation of their own based on ethnicity, are they also bordering on "fascist"?Edward, this gibberish is all amazingly stupid, and probably best discussed on another forum. In short, no, a Palestinian state wouldn't be universalist.
    Secondly, there are reasons for supporting oppressed minorities other than ethnocentrism. If ethnicity is the sole lens through which you view the world, get out more.

    Finally, when I speak of fascism, I mean something fairly specific, for which Mussolini and Hitler alone were the models.

    As for Iraq, it's a long story, and you can read about it elsewhere. All the same, there are lots of reasons to oppose US invasions.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Quote from Indian protestor in ABC video: "We like Australia, but Australians don't like us... If you want respect, give respect. If you won't give respect then you'll talk to our fists".

    If an Anglo said that he'd be publicly harangued or charged with hate speech.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Quote from Indian protestor in ABC video: "We like Australia, but Australians don't like us... If you want respect, give respect. If you won't give respect then you'll talk to our fists".

    If an Anglo said that he'd be publicly harangued or charged with hate speech.
    Or write for News Ltd

    ReplyDelete
  75. Andrew Bolt has a new column addressing this "Australia is racist" media beat-up. Read it here.

    Bolt makes some very important points:

    "IF we weren't so scared of seeming racist, we wouldn't now seem so, er, racist that even India is giving us lectures.

    Amazing, that. India, which perfected the caste system and is plagued by Hindu-Muslim bloodfests, is telling us we're too prejudiced?

    But we have only our own stupidity and grovelling self-hatred to blame.

    After all, which nation has spent so much apologetic cash and sweat to persuade the world we are vomiting with racism, and which has been, on the other hand, too militantly anti-racist to point out who is actually bashing many of these Indian students?"

    ReplyDelete
  76. 'One-punch' homicides every month

    "AT least once a month in Victoria someone dies in a "one-punch homicide" – a drunken confrontation outside a pub where the victim hits his head on the ground and dies, the state's police chief says...

    He said the recent attacks on Indian students was symptomatic of growing assaults on soft targets."

    ReplyDelete
  77. Greg Sheridan:
    "There's a lot we could do much better. How about a home visits scheme, where ordinary Australians invite foreign students for a weekend meal? After all, foreign students are not only dollars and cents, they're also human beings."
    Good luck with that...

    ReplyDelete
  78. There's so much bullsh*t going on in this post and thread.

    1) For those who are so obsessed with trying to implicated non-white people in these attacks, I've broken it down for you here: http://eurasian-sensation.blogspot.com/2009/06/curry-bashing-what-ethnicity-are.html

    It's every bit of info I could find on the ethnicity of recent attackers of Indians, it it demonstrates no such pattern.

    2) Your critique of Nazeem Hussain's article is also flawed. It's clear, considering the nature and sheer number of attacks on Indians, that at least SOME of them are racially motivated if not all.
    Why then is it so surprising that Hussain, who fits the physical description of the victims in these cases, should feel scared at the prospect of being a potential victim. As a (lighter shade of) brown person myself, I totally understand that sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
  79. It's clear, considering the nature and sheer number of attacks on Anglo-Australians by non-Anglos, that at least SOME of them are racially motivated if not all.

    Why then is it so surprising that some of us, who fits the physical description of the victims in these cases, should feel scared at the prospect of being a potential victim. As a white person myself, I totally understand that sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Eurasian sensation,

    I read your own post and it confirms my point: that most of the attacks on Indian students in Melbourne have been committed by non-Anglos.

    You list 11 perpetrators. Of these 8 are definitely non-Anglo. The remaining 3 may or may not be Anglo. One is listed as caucasion. One has a surname which could be Anglo. One looked like he could be Anglo from the CCTV camera.

    These figures don't include the Africans who attacked the Indian taxi drivers.

    You yourself write that "foreign media has singled out Anglo-Australians to a degree which is perhaps unfair".

    ReplyDelete
  81. Even David Marr admits "One observation: not all the attackers are white. Race is always a shifting, contested and complicated business."

    He repeated this view on ABC radio this morning that other ethnicities are involved in attacking Indians.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Mark, yes I did indeed write that "foreign media has singled out Anglo-Australians to a degree which is perhaps unfair". I could also write that Oz Conservative has singled out non-Anglo-Australians to a degree which is perhaps unfair.

    Btw is the main thrust of this thread about white people, or Anglos? Because a significant number of the perpetrators I listed would seem to be white, if not specifically Anglo.

    Anonymous @ 3:39, oooh you're clever aren't you? Using my own words to argue with me like that. Actually I don't disagree with you at all, your statement is entirely reasonable. Which is why I wonder why everyone on this thread is attacking Nazeem Hussain for saying exactly the same thing?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Harris Park violence 'going on for years'

    "Street thugs in Harris Park, in Sydney's west, were violently attacking elderly white women for a number of years before shifting their focus to Indians, says a NSW politician who raised the problem of violence in the suburb in State Parliament two years ago.

    Gordon Moyes, a member of the NSW upper house, said he understood Indian students' rage at being "picked on", but believed the problem of street crime in Harris Park had gone unaddressed for years...

    "I found that over a period of time many elderly Anglo-Saxon women were attacked and robbed and had their purses snatched and phones stolen," he said.

    He said the attacks were mainly carried out by young Middle-Eastern men."

    ReplyDelete
  84. Kevin Rudd turns to comedy:
    "With each new wave of immigrants to this country there's been debates and concerns and they've all faded and they've have all been resolved," he said.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "THE Sunshine pedestrian subway is 130m of spit-filled, bloody trouble...

    Much of the crime is ethnic-based but the perception in India of white Australians taking advantage of vulnerable Indians is wide of the mark."

    ReplyDelete
  86. WA has gone preemptive in search of racist attacks. Despite "There have been no recent reported cases in WA similar to the bashings in Victoria" the Ethnic Communities Council of WA has "launched a website to give foreign students a way to anonymously report race-based assaults". Because they know that whites are racist bashers. It's a given...

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.