Saturday, February 16, 2008

Roebuck: it gets worse

One man I would never put in charge of defending a national culture is Peter Roebuck. He's the English cricketer turned Australian sports journalist, who now seems to specialise in knocking white Australians.

A couple of months ago Roebuck wrote a column calling the Australian cricket team a "pack of dogs" and suggesting they be sacked. He followed this up by writing of native born Australians that:

The game is up for that lot. It is time to move on. It is debatable whether people born in this country should be allowed to vote.

In case we didn't get the message he's penned another column claiming that racist Anglo-Australians have excluded other people from playing cricket, and that only now with the emergence of some non-Anglo players is the country finally advancing toward the light.

Roebuck's column begins:

Lily-livered lilywhites have held cricket back

OVER the years, Australian cricket has been dominated by players of Anglo-Saxon extraction ...

He then proceeds to describe Anglo-Australians in negative terms, claiming they represent what is narrow, limited and insular, and that they have taunted, sledged, scorned and drummed out non-white players (he also fits in a reference to massacres).

In contrast, the non-white players are described in more glowing terms: they are "brilliant", "blessed with lively pace", and "gifted". One player's mother "made the best dim sims in Sydney" and a Muslim player is a "fully-qualified pilot".

Which leads Roebuck to this conclusion:

Australia is advancing. A bright-eyed 17-year-old girl is making her Test debut in Bowral. Aboriginal sides from every corner of the country are taking part in the Imparja Cup in Alice Springs. And a government led by a Mandarin speaker has just issued a formal apology to the first tenants of this vast, hostile continent. It is all part of the same process, a long-awaited and stiffly resisted move towards enlightenment.

So the existence of a country of white Australians represents for Roebuck a kind of dark ages, a backwardness to be overcome. The past is to be disparaged as necessarily racist and parochial; whites are to be denigrated as a negative force in history resisting progress to equality and diversity.

My first instinctive response to Roebuck is to ask: what kind of a man is this? A more fully natured man would feel a positive connection to his ancestry, to the history of his own people, and to the unique culture they have produced together.

Those who feel connected in this way to their own tradition are most likely to be the ones who drive things forward, who are motivated to make a productive and creative contribution to the ongoing community they love and identify with.

Roebuck not only lacks a natural loyalty to his own tradition, he has turned against his coethnics and placed them in a most difficult position - that of playing the role of cosmic enemy to human progress.

Hat tip: Abandon Skip


  1. Roebuck is a leftist bigot (redundant term, I know).

    Unfortunately he is typical of the commentariat class. They had been kept somewhat quiet over the mid to latter parts of Howard's leadership. Now they are unleashed and we can see them for what they truly are.

  2. When I first saw

    "...a long-awaited and stiffly resisted move towards enlightenment."

    I thought it said "alignment". I'm not sure that's not what was meant in the first place.

    Not to worry. The potency of left-liberal ideology will be ejected or at least clipped when centuries of non-liberal, traditional sensibilities wake up and shake off the likes of Roebuck like fleas. As they say, the best indication of future behavior is past behavior, and one has only to look back to history to see the inevitable fate of non-adaptive, literally soulless ideologies.

  3. I'd suggest that Roebuck ought to return to England, where he'd obviously fit in much better.
    After all, the English are busy handing over their culture and their country to a primitive 7th. century barbarous ideology, even as they issue cowardly apologies for the mere fact that they happen to be white.
    He doesn't deserve the privilege of Australian citizenship.
    Loathsome little little man.

  4. As a Greek Australian, I have tried to understand why Anglo's like Roebuck have this attitude.

    I think there are unique elements at play here.

    First, Roebuck probably sees himself as a higher class anglo, and the English cricket team represents that to a large degree.

    Savvas Tzionis

    Whereas, the Australian team is made up of all walks of anglo Australia. Although it has changed to the point where they all seem to be belligerent in your face 'uncultured' types. Their attitude irks me, as it does Robeuck.

    Secondly, I am (and Roebuck probably is too) a 'socialist' in that we like to see the spoils of victory shared.

    Thirdly, anglo-culture is the predominant culture of the world. And again, the socialist tendencies come into play. I want (and maybe Roebuck as well) to see the various culture's of the world given eqaul exposure.

    Roebuck's writing is silly in many respects. But he is also writing to an audience that does not like their own team, including me!!

  5. "I want (and maybe Roebuck as well) to see the various culture's of the world given eqaul exposure."

    Fine--let's do that.And watch Australian cricket slide into mediocrity.Because only a team selected entirely on merit will maintain a high degree of excellence, and one selected on the basis of inclusion and affirmative action and all the other soft and fuzzy crap socialists are so fond of peddling would be a pack of losers.
    What the hell does giving "all cultures equal exposure" have to do with selecting a national team?

    Save the PC crap for the lecture hall--socialism and enforced multiculturalism are both disasters.

  6. anonymous,

    If I said there were too many blacks in a team, or too many Greeks, what would you call that comment?

    So why is it okay to say there are too many "anglos"?

    Do you believe the Indian and West Indian teams should choose white players to make them more representative of the "cultures of the world"?

  7. I didn't realise that being conservative also meant being very very angry.

    Giving "all cultures equal exposure" has nothing to do with our cricket team. I was talking about the predominance of anglo culture around the world. That is, all discussions are viewed through the prism of the anglo world. Remember, when the Indians and Australians converse, it is not in Hindi, it is in English.

    Why would you think I expect the Australian cricket team to pick non-performers? In any case, the Australian cricket team will within 10 years have at least 2 players of sub-continent descent simply because they are the most passionate and because of the prevailing migration patterns. And 'Aussie' kids are increasingly becoming disinterested in the sport.

    In fact, kg and wpc, you really did not address anything that I mentioned.

    But let me ask you something, why are you not proud of the fact that the English language, and to a lesser extent, Anglo culture, appears so omnipotent?

    Your anger makes it appear that you are a fighting a rear-guard action to 'save' anglo culture.

    Savvas Tzionis

  8. "In fact, kg and wpc, you really did not address anything that I mentioned."
    In fact, we did. Your comprehension skills are inadequate.
    "That is, all discussions are viewed through the prism of the anglo world. Remember, when the Indians and Australians converse, it is not in Hindi, it is in English."
    What utter drivel. It obviously hasn't occurred to you that the discussions are in English because English is the world's common lanbguage?
    When physicists meet at international conferences the proceedings are in *gasp!* English. As are the scientific papers. So does that mean that sub-atomic theory is viewed through "the prism of the Anglo world"?
    And by the weay, re your angry conservatives jibe--I'm not angry because I'm a conservative--I'm a conservative who is angry at the stupidity of socialists.
    Or perhaps the difference is too subtle for you to grasp?

  9. Savvas,

    1. Presumably it's okay to be "very very angry" if one is a liberal.

    2. Maybe white people in Australia are just sick of being told "white people are bad." I certainly am.

    3. Giving "all cultures equal exposure" has nothing to do with our cricket team.

    Except that this post was *about* the cricket team and that there are "too many white people" in it, according to Roebuck. This strikes me as racist.

    4. simply because they are the most passionate

    What makes you say this? How can you even measure it?

    5. And 'Aussie' kids are increasingly becoming disinterested in the sport. I think I'd dispute that. Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

    6. Is there something wrong with Australia having an "anglo" view of the world - given that it was (for better or worse) settled by the English?

    7. I am (and Roebuck probably is too) a 'socialist' in that we like to see the spoils of victory shared.

    Are you referring to cricket? If not, I'm not sure what you are referring to by "victory."

  10. anonymous,

    Gee, I didn't think anyone could see me shaking my fist at the screen and frothing at the mouth.

    I could give you a long post , discussing your points, but I would just be wasting my time.

    See lyl's point 2. It pretty much says enough.

  11. And I thought Gerard Baker was bad!

    Why stop with just harrassing the 'nativist rabble' when you can harass a whole country.

    Can't Britian find an alternative palce to send its unwanted journalists, maybe somewhere a little more out of the way, like say, South Georgia.

  12. Anonymous.

    As an “Hellene” you should realise that the particular “culture” of your ethnic group (albeit the ancient variety) would have to be grossly over-represented , and not getting the “fair share of the spoils of victory”. Why is it that there is so much emphasis on Homer, on Plato, Socrates and on Pythagoras? Surely children should be taught at least as much on aboriginal tool making and tracking techniques? Surely this is showing the proper respect for aboriginal culture which is far older than that of Greece, and, of course, must have far greater “practical value” for Australia? As for the Greek language. I suppose in the vein of your “cultural socialism” you must be pleased that it is apparently no longer required as the mark of an educated man to be conversant in the language of Socrates and Homer. After all, the value we place upon the Greek achievement is surely purely based upon our “cultural prism” which magnifies this to the detriment of the Malays and Melanesians, not to mention our own Saxon and Celtic ancestors!

    As for Anglo culture not being threatened…

    If Greece were colonised by the Turks again, to the extent where Thessalonika and Athens had very large Turkish populations, and the government of Greece decided to cease all formal recognition of the festivals of the Greek Orthodox Church, and in fact to discourage the public celebrations of this. And further, downplayed the achievements of ancient Greece and the Eastern Empire (or tried to de-ethnic them), and tried to ensure that your children would be ignorant of the achievements of the Hellenic nation for the sake of “multiculturalism”, and would normally only mention the ancient world in terms of the “Crimes” of Alexander the Great and the “bloodthirsty raids” made by the Athenians on Persian territory and the imperialistic colonial foundations the Greeks made throughout the Mediterranean World you may be able to understand how we might feel. Multiculturalism supposedly encourages all groups, EXCEPT Anglos, to identify with their “ethnic roots” and maintain this identity. Anglos alone seem to be required to not have an identity, and to be born yesterday. Unless, of course, you’re suggesting that for all the talk, “everyone knows the truth”, in which case multiculturalism as practiced in Australia is pure humbug. Please think it over.

    As for Roebuck. His championing of “people of colour” is a way of seeking the “moral high ground” and demonstrating how “Free of Prejudice” he is. Perhaps, like others who’ve been accused of doing what he was supposed to have done in Africa, he is seeking to hide behind a smokescreen of excessive moralising. The key point is that the man is simply ignorant. I don’t like the idea of the Australian team having the reputation of “sledging” which I think is bad sportsmanship. The ICC should have taken a zero tolerance policy to this rather than to anything “racist”, which is where we’re in this strange situation where Singh’s defence is that he made degrading insults about Symonds’ mother rather than a “racial reference” (which would surely be more insulting). I’m sure Indians and Sri Lankans are capable of being racist as anyone else. As for Cricket being very “Anglo”. Well yes it is. But it isn’t true that only “Anglos” have played for Australia. There was Len Pascoe, who was of Croatian descent (he lost some years to World Series Cricket and was forced out of the game with knee trouble); and there was Mike Valetta, who was Maltese (he could possibly have played more than he did, but was unlucky in being up against the West Indies when they were good and vying with Mark Taylor, Dean Jones and the Waugh’s for selection). These are simply two that I know of. Your “insults” Anonymous were simply ridiculous. Australia has, in comparison to England, not had an exceptionally high level of immigration from the Sub-Continent, so it isn’t unusual that there haven’t been many in the Test side, and if there are some in the future, then what? What precisely does this prove? Can you point to a “non-Anglo” in first class cricket who was left out of the Test side simply because they weren’t “Anglo”?

  13. Anglo culture is under threat?

    This is rubbish.

    Have you watched television? It is still white bread. You only have to remember what happened to Christine Spiteri. She was sacked because the Channel Nine producer said "with a name like that, you belong on SBS".

    And let me tell you, being Maltese, she would have been completely assimiliated into anglo-australian ways of life. Obviously that is not good enough.

    Now, I agree that our racial make-up will change dramatically over the next 40/50 years.

    But thats the price you and I will have to pay for colonising an area that is as far from Britain as can be, and to keep the economy growing (since socialism is a complete failure, then ONLY capitalism can keep things going).

    Politics will dictate that we MUST accept the people from our region.

    You will have to accept this.

    Being of Greek background, I really do not care who my neighbours are. They are all non-Greek to me.

    Savvas Tzionis

  14. Savvas is confusing "anglo" culture with modern western liberal culture.

    Interesting that he declares himself a socialist, but then says socialism is a failure.

    His last statement shows exactly why multiculturalism is destructive to society.

  15. Rubbish is it? Why? Because the “bread is white”. This superficial rubbish. Looking at TV a lot of the shows are American, but that hardly means that we are American now does it? Additionally, quite a few of these “television personalities” are time servers, relics from the 1960’s and ‘70’s. On top of that people like David Koch are not “Anglo”, Kosh (which is deliberately mispronounced) is German. The star of Ocean Girl had a very Slavic sounding name. Incidentally, I don’t think that “Anglo Culture” is under threat because there are Greeks (should I say “Hellenes”) in Australia, but because certain members of the political establishment find “cultural change” pleasing to their egos, and think that it is a fine way to curry favour with the “intelligentsia” and with people like you. I cannot comment on the case of Christine Spiteri, but I suspect that there was more to it than the sound of her name. In Perth (or doesn’t that count as it is outside of Melbourne) we’ve had Tina Alterari, Sonia Vinci and Nadia Mitsopolis as the prime news readers or main “political reporters” on Nine, and “ethnics” make up a smaller proportion of the population in Perth than in Melbourne.

    As for the next 40/50 years, who knows? If the population changes it won’t be because we’ve colonised a place “far from Britain” (although you seem happy enough to live the in society thus created) but because of the need to “curry favour” with places in Asia, or a desire of the “powers that be” to keep labour costs low, which is what mass immigration means. When Australia was founded, it took 6 to 8 months to sail from England. Now you can fly in 20 hours or so. It isn’t distance that keeps the Brits away. Britain herself has taken a large number of immigrants from the Sub-continent and “ethnic Chinese” even though neither of those places are actually “close” to Britain.

    Do I detect a little animosity in your post? Is it the case that you feel “alienated” in this wider society, and so you wish to deny to others what you feel you cannot have yourself? All your neighbours are “non-Greek”, and so you insist that everyone else must not live near anyone else of their own “ethnic community”? Is that it? It’s a bit like banning houses within half a mile of the beach because I don’t have such a house: or a bachelor calling for higher taxes to be placed upon the married because it “isn’t fair” that they can combine two incomes and possibly share the housework! One more question. Do you identify with Greece in anyway? If so, are you classified as a “traitor” for doing so?

  16. To Anonymous at 8:16 (20 Feb).


    Yes, I feel 'alienated' to a large extent. I see many Italians becoming 'doggerised'. This is South Australian slang for the 'Australianisation' of these people.

    I fear that my fellow Greeks will become the same.

    But I get upset that 'white people' in this country should get so upset about some changes to society that to me are so trivial to the losses we migrant communities are experiencing.

    These losses are exacerbated by mainstream Australia's attitude. e.g. The Greek community of Oakleigh tried to get the street name changed of the main mall where a large percentage of owners and customers are of greek background. They wanted to change it to a greek name (Omonia Square). It failed.

    Think about that. Of the thousands upon thousands of street names in Australia, a migrant community wanted to change ONE name. And the council rejected it.

    I repeat, I am a conservative. I want to conserve my communities language, culture, to a lessser extent its religion, and its sense of 'greekness'.

    You guys are also conservative in a similiar vein.

    I would argue that my loss is far greater than yours.

    Anyway, back to the cricket?

  17. OK Mate, then why do you have such "sympathy" for Roebuck? He's the kind of bloke who would say that you should drop your "Greekness". Loss of ethnic identity is a problem for you because of what you see as the "seductiveness" of "Anglo culture". I put it to you, the only thing "traditional" about this "Anglo culture" is that it is spoken in English, sort of. If I rented "Clash of the Titans" or "Zorba the Greek" (which stared a Mexican in the title role) does that mean that I'm being emersed in "Hellenic Culture"?

    As I put earlier. I don't agree with Sledging. Instead of running the PC programme to bignote themselves, and curry favour with certain teams, it would have been better for the ICC to run a zero tolerance campaign against sledging! In the case of Singh, it is deemed acceptable that he used a far greater insult instead of this "racial slur". On top of this, the fact that Symonds bad sportsmanship actually started this particular exchange is overlooked as well. That said, since the Indians back this "zero tolerance approach" it is wrong of them to object if it is only their own players that gets caught on it.

    As for Roebuck. He is a self-righteous bore, and thinks being Anglo gives him a blank check to rip into Anglo-Australia without any form or restraint, whilst at the same time, elevating his own personal sense of morality and superior "conciousness". Perhaps he got a few "whinging pom" jibes when he first came to Australia?

    As for our "whinging". Roebuck is happy to say that WE are the cause of all the ills of the world. That any of us, in fact, will get whatever position we wish through being "Anglo". Further, he says we should be denied the vote in our on land, and this apparently should be reserved for the likes of him and Hilaly.

    The purpose of this is clear. He is attempting to portray himself as a clear sighted "independent thinker" free of "prejudice", and poves this by effectively claiming that all cultures and "ethnicities" are superior to his own, but that this "assumption of virtue" on his part makes him personally supeior, a definate part of the cut above. It is this type of person who doesn't really value anything except his own smug self-righteousness. If you don't respect your own heritage, how can you be expected to value that of other people? These people who regualarly trash "british" Australia, and pick up on certain aspects of "aboriginal culture" (I wonder how authentic many of them are) completely out of context as if it is some smorgesboard aren't really showing "respect" to actual aboriginal traditions (and usually haven't bothered to learn much about them) but are seeking to make themselves feel smugly

    The arrogance of cultural revolutionaries is that they can remake the entire world in their own image, and to their own taste, and impose this upon lesser mortals, whom they usually snear at (take the patronising language in Roebuck's articles). It is essential that these people feel that they are "morally superior" in order to do this. Multicultural progressivism is only one way to do it, but I don't think ethnic minorities have committed allies in such people. They are just as likely to drop them if they ever got in the way of their "progressive march".

  18. anon says "...and poves this by effectively claiming that all cultures and "ethnicities" are superior to his own, but that this "assumption of virtue" on his part makes him personally supeior..."

    What is also notable about this-- though I do believe that such thinking represents only a small but well organized, media-enriched segment of the population-- is that minorities of whatever type do not see it for the charade it is. What sensible person would not think it strange that members of another group abandoned their own kind to side with them, artificially as it were?

    It is difficult to see these things on one's own.