aussieboy
December 20th, 2005, 11:22 AM
The Australian
Cut & paste: Sydney, French riots reflect cultural, not racial, problem
December 21, 2005
Mark Steyn, in The Daily Telegraph in London, on the failure of Muslims to assimilate into Western society
WHAT'S the deal with these riots in Sydney? You switch on the television and there are scenes of urban conflagration and you think, "Hang on, I saw this story last month." But no. They were French riots. These are Australian riots. Entirely different. The French riots were perpetrated by – what's the word? – "youths". The Australian riots were perpetrated by "white youths". Same age cohort, but adjectivally enhanced . . .
There are no doubt "white racists" down under, but, as an explanation of what's going on, it's almost quaintly absurd. "People of Middle Eastern background" have prospered in Australia.
The Governor of NSW, Marie Bashir, is Lebanese, as is her husband, Nicholas Shehadie, as is the premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks. Likewise, in my own state of New Hampshire, one of the least racially diverse jurisdictions in North America, the last Senate race was nevertheless fought between a Republican, John Sununu, and a Democrat, Jeanne Shaheen, both from Lebanese families.
All these successful politicians are of Lebanese Christian stock: that's to say, after a third of a century in their new countries, they weren't conversing with reporters in Arabic. It's not racial, it's cultural. And the cries of "Racist!" are intended to make any discussion of that cultural problem beyond the pale.
In that sense, Sydney's beach riots are a logical sequel to what happened in France. From opposite ends of the planet, there are nevertheless many similarities: non-Muslim women are hectored and insulted in the streets of both Clichy-sous-Bois and Brighton-le-Sands. The only difference is that, in Oz, the "white youths" decided to have a go back.
These days, whenever something goofy turns up on the news, chances are it involves a fellow called Mohammed. A plane flies into the World Trade Centre? Mohammed Atta. A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet. A sniper starts killing petrol station customers around Washington, DC? John Allen Muhammed. A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri. A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed. A gang-rapist in Sydney? Mohammed Skaf. Maybe all these Mohammeds are victims of Australian white racists and American white racists and Dutch white racists and Balinese white racists and Beslan schoolgirl white racists.
But the eagerness of the Aussie and British and Canadian and European media, week in, week out, to attribute each outbreak of an apparently universal phenomenon to strictly local factors is starting to look pathological. "Violence and racism are bad" (as Cate Blanchett put it at Coogee Beach last Friday), but so is self-delusion.
Prime Minister John Howard, on the Nine Network's Today program yesterday:
QUESTION: A poll conducted by The Sydney Morning Herald suggests that 75 per cent of Australians disagree with you when you say that there's no underlying racism in this country . . .
Howard: I don't think (that poll) quite means what it appears on the surface. At the same time as that poll there was a poll that said 81 per cent of people supported multiculturalism and a majority of people thought that our present migrant intake was about right. Now if there is underlying racism in Australia, I find it har to believe that 81 per cent of the population would support multiculturalism – the two things don't sit together.
Multiculturalism means a lot of things, different things to different people, but in its lowest common denominator it means that people believe in diversity and are therefore tolerant of racial and ethnic difference. So if 81 per cent of the population is tolerant and supportive of ethnic and racial difference, then you can't simultaneously have underlying racism . . .
There are some people in the Australian community who are racist, but I do not believe the average Australian is a racist, I do not believe that the majority of Australians are racist. I mean why would we have accepted people so well? Why do we practise every day our tolerance and our respect for people?
It is very important as we go through the difficulty of reacting to these events that we don't overreact. It's very important we don't become too self-critical. It's very important we don't lose any of the confidence that we've had as an outward-looking nation because we are the most successful role model around the world of absorbing people from different parts of the world.
Cut & paste: Sydney, French riots reflect cultural, not racial, problem
December 21, 2005
Mark Steyn, in The Daily Telegraph in London, on the failure of Muslims to assimilate into Western society
WHAT'S the deal with these riots in Sydney? You switch on the television and there are scenes of urban conflagration and you think, "Hang on, I saw this story last month." But no. They were French riots. These are Australian riots. Entirely different. The French riots were perpetrated by – what's the word? – "youths". The Australian riots were perpetrated by "white youths". Same age cohort, but adjectivally enhanced . . .
There are no doubt "white racists" down under, but, as an explanation of what's going on, it's almost quaintly absurd. "People of Middle Eastern background" have prospered in Australia.
The Governor of NSW, Marie Bashir, is Lebanese, as is her husband, Nicholas Shehadie, as is the premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks. Likewise, in my own state of New Hampshire, one of the least racially diverse jurisdictions in North America, the last Senate race was nevertheless fought between a Republican, John Sununu, and a Democrat, Jeanne Shaheen, both from Lebanese families.
All these successful politicians are of Lebanese Christian stock: that's to say, after a third of a century in their new countries, they weren't conversing with reporters in Arabic. It's not racial, it's cultural. And the cries of "Racist!" are intended to make any discussion of that cultural problem beyond the pale.
In that sense, Sydney's beach riots are a logical sequel to what happened in France. From opposite ends of the planet, there are nevertheless many similarities: non-Muslim women are hectored and insulted in the streets of both Clichy-sous-Bois and Brighton-le-Sands. The only difference is that, in Oz, the "white youths" decided to have a go back.
These days, whenever something goofy turns up on the news, chances are it involves a fellow called Mohammed. A plane flies into the World Trade Centre? Mohammed Atta. A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet. A sniper starts killing petrol station customers around Washington, DC? John Allen Muhammed. A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri. A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed. A gang-rapist in Sydney? Mohammed Skaf. Maybe all these Mohammeds are victims of Australian white racists and American white racists and Dutch white racists and Balinese white racists and Beslan schoolgirl white racists.
But the eagerness of the Aussie and British and Canadian and European media, week in, week out, to attribute each outbreak of an apparently universal phenomenon to strictly local factors is starting to look pathological. "Violence and racism are bad" (as Cate Blanchett put it at Coogee Beach last Friday), but so is self-delusion.
Prime Minister John Howard, on the Nine Network's Today program yesterday:
QUESTION: A poll conducted by The Sydney Morning Herald suggests that 75 per cent of Australians disagree with you when you say that there's no underlying racism in this country . . .
Howard: I don't think (that poll) quite means what it appears on the surface. At the same time as that poll there was a poll that said 81 per cent of people supported multiculturalism and a majority of people thought that our present migrant intake was about right. Now if there is underlying racism in Australia, I find it har to believe that 81 per cent of the population would support multiculturalism – the two things don't sit together.
Multiculturalism means a lot of things, different things to different people, but in its lowest common denominator it means that people believe in diversity and are therefore tolerant of racial and ethnic difference. So if 81 per cent of the population is tolerant and supportive of ethnic and racial difference, then you can't simultaneously have underlying racism . . .
There are some people in the Australian community who are racist, but I do not believe the average Australian is a racist, I do not believe that the majority of Australians are racist. I mean why would we have accepted people so well? Why do we practise every day our tolerance and our respect for people?
It is very important as we go through the difficulty of reacting to these events that we don't overreact. It's very important we don't become too self-critical. It's very important we don't lose any of the confidence that we've had as an outward-looking nation because we are the most successful role model around the world of absorbing people from different parts of the world.