Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Sydney Race Riots

By driptray in Op-Ed
Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 02:11:36 AM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

I live in Sydney. Yesterday a friend who lives overseas emailed me to ask what was going on. This was my reply.

------------

I grew up in the Sutherland Shire, and Cronulla was my local beach, so I know what the scene is down there. It's the only beach in Sydney that has a railway station, so it's always been the beach that has had a "problem" with lots of "outsiders" coming in on the weekend. In my day as a teenager it was the "Bankies" (from Bankstown, a western suburb far from the coast) that were the outsiders. Today Sydney has expanded so far to the west that Bankstown isn't particularly far west any more - it's a middle-ring suburb that has become almost 100% immigrant, as the whites have fled either further west to the rural fringe, or to the sanctity of the bourgeois bohemian inner-city (where I now live).

But Cronulla and the Sutherland Shire are struggling to remain in their white-bread time warp.


For the past 5 (or maybe 50) years, the Cronulla locals have been getting pissed off with "lebs and wogs" coming on to the beach and disturbing the peace. There's probably some substance to their complaint - there's a lot of fucked-up Lebanese gangsters that are always looking for trouble.

Two weekends ago the trigger got pulled. Some Lebanese guys (or just "wogs" - it's not clear) were playing soccer (a wog sport!) on the beach, and pissing off everybody around them who were lying about in the sun and not wanting to get hit with the ball, etc etc. The lifesavers (sorta like beach cops, but with no real authority) asked them to stop, but apparently did it with a bit of attitude - racial slurs, and reminders that the Lebs couldn't swim (with the implication that if they were drowning, they wouldn't get saved).

So the soccer-playing lebs beat up the lifesavers.

Now lifesavers are kind of an Australian icon. They're usually volunteers, and considered archetypal good-guys, embodying sun, surf, good looks, volunteerism, altruism, and every good quality you could think of. So beating them up wasn't a good public relations move for the lebs.

In the week following this event, the Cronulla locals started organising some revenge. There was the famous text message that got forwarded to everybody, demanding that "Aussies" get down to the beach next Sunday for "bash a leb and wog" day. It was a call to arms to "take back the beach from the foreign invaders".

At this stage I was dismissing the whole thing as a media beat up. Like I said, the Cronulla locals had always had problems with outsiders. Back in the 50s it was with "rockers", and in the 60s and 70s it was with "sharpies" (the forerunners of skinheads). And then in my day, "Bankies".

But on Sunday 5,000 people turned up at Cronulla and attacked anybody who looked vaguely leb or wog. They beat them up badly. There were a lot of people injured. There was a 5,000-strong mob chanting racist slogans, and the cops, believe it or not, were putting themselves on the line defending the dark-skinned from the merely sun-burned.

Later on Sunday evening a bunch of leb guys, in an obvious attempt at revenge, went to Maroubra beach (where they had a long-standing dispute with the Maroubra locals), and smashed a bunch of cars up. And then on Monday night the lebs went to both Cronulla and Maroubra and smashed shit up, shot their guns (considered cowardly and foreign in white-bread Australia) and actually stabbed somebody.

They're the facts, pretty much. Here's the reaction.

The Lebanese community has two things to say. First, that the leb guys who beat up the lifesavers and who are smashing shit up are basically criminal gangsters who aren't representative of the Lebanese community. Second, that "regular" Australian society is deeply prejudiced against the Lebanese community, so although they can't condone the actions of the Leb gangsters, they can understand some of their frustrations.

The "white" community...well, it's hard for me to say. Although I live in the same city, I live in a world far from these troubles. I'd say the white community is divided. The mainstream opinion is, of course, highly condemnatory of the actions of the Cronulla locals. They're portrayed as racist thugs. But on the other hand they have quite a bit of open support and possibly a lot more not-so-open support.

The main tabloid newspaper in Sydney (Murdoch's Daily Telegraph) spent last week hyping the line from the Cronulla locals. They were running headlines like "IT'S OUR BEACH!", and the stories within were uncritical of the attitude expressed within the headline.

But after the riot they quickly changed. Monday's headline was "OUR DISGRACE", and the story within was harshly critical of the Cronulla locals.

Are you familiar with the expression "dog-whistle politics"? That's where politicians use language that on its face is perfectly reasonable, yet manages to communicate something quite different at a non-literate frequency heard only by "dogs". A classic example is the Howard government's election slogan of "We'll decide who comes to this country, and the conditions under which they come". Who could argue with a basic statement of Australian sovereignty and the right of the Australian government to determine immigration law? But the subtext - the dog-whistle - was clear - Whitey says no to Darkey.

The tabloid use of the word "our" was another classic dog-whistle, so it was interesting to see them suddenly change direction from "our beach" to "our disgrace". But regardless, they never show the Lebanese point of view.

On the other hand, the main Sydney broadsheet (The Sydney Morning Herald) was never supportive of the Cronulla locals. They ran the following letter in Tuesday's edition:

The Howard Government and its media cheer squad have been blowing a racist dog whistle for at least five years. Why were they so surprised when the pack eventually turned up?

That letter just about says it all for me.

So what happens now? It's all bad. There's no silver lining. Neither side of politics is daring to suggest that the Cronulla locals are racist, and although nobody likes the look of an angry mob, that mob are going to get a lot more sympathy than the lebs as this war inevitably escalates. The general public have been well primed with stories of Islamic terrorism and the massively publicised (but unfortunately true) story of the teenage Lebanese gang who set about deliberately raping "Aussie" girls.

So it's all turning to shit.

That's what's going on.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Who's to blame?
o The Lebanese 26%
o The Cronulla locals 15%
o The lifesavers 7%
o John Howard 24%
o Pauline Hanson 1%
o The ALP 1%
o The media 22%

Votes: 53
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Daily Telegraph
o The Sydney Morning Herald
o Also by driptray


Display: Sort:
Sydney Race Riots | 315 comments (297 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden)
John Howard doesn't care about Lebanese people (2.00 / 3) (#3)
by durdee on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 06:25:22 PM EST

In my day as a teenager it was the "Bankies" (from Bankstown, a western suburb far from the coast) that were the outsiders.
Well, in my day it was the greasers and the socs.
---
Fact: You have no insight whatsoever into my motivations, personality, or thought process.
well maybe... (none / 0) (#5)
by creativedissonance on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 06:37:02 PM EST

after all, it is very useful to have a convenient scapegoat.


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
He does care about the lebos... (none / 1) (#15)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:16:31 PM EST

Who do you think cleans his toilets?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Things are tough all over, Ponyboy... (none / 0) (#108)
by perplext on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 06:12:40 PM EST

Kanye? Kanye SouthEast?
>=D

[ Parent ]
welcome to our 21st century reality (2.76 / 13) (#9)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 06:56:29 PM EST

the fringes of our communities are driving the dialog

that's not good

where communities meet, the west and the arab world, the behavior of the fringes of the group defines the character of the group to the other group

in other words, when 9/11 happens, it has to be explained that islam is not a religion of war

and when the americans invade iraq, it has to be explained that the west isn't composed of oil-hungry crusaders

and yet, despite the fact that 95% of the arab world and 95% of the west are composed of good people, it is the 5% in either community that seem to have the initiative today

the good center of moderate people in either community seem to have lost their grasp of world events, and aren't in control anymore

what i fear is erosion: that the fringes will feed off each other and grow each other: that today's australian nazi punk breeds tomorrow's islamonazi wazkjob, and visa versa

when the middle erodes and the fringes grow, we are all in trouble

we need the good people at the moderate center of the western and arab worlds to be more vocal in their outrage and more assertive in the persecution of their own fringe elements

but i don't see that


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

What's happened to you? (2.00 / 2) (#14)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:14:45 PM EST

You've changed man... You've changed... Have you got a girl/boyfriend or something because this is the most mellow I've ever seen you CTS in all my years of being trolled by you.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
i haven't changed one bit (none / 0) (#17)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:23:45 PM EST

what did i say that was inconsistent with anything i've said before?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
You know it! (none / 0) (#23)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:46:03 PM EST

Stop denying it.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
be more specific (1.50 / 2) (#24)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:48:35 PM EST

or shut the fuck up

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Hmmm... (none / 1) (#26)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:53:05 PM EST

This response is the intitial reaction I would have expected. There, that's specific enough without requiring any effort...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
may you (1.50 / 2) (#27)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:56:53 PM EST

choke on your mothers feces while you give a blow job to your neighbor's dog

xoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Oh damn! (1.50 / 2) (#30)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:09:33 PM EST

You're turning me on now... I think I need to go somewhere more... private like so I can think this over...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
yes and no (3.00 / 4) (#28)
by minerboy on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:01:17 PM EST

I mostly agree, but one other thing that is important is how the sensible 95% deal with the rotten 5%. If they make excuses, or deal inconsistantly with these people, then the trouble escalates. So if the arabs tolerate, and make excuses for their gangster element, which it sounds like they do, then the vigilante element takes over. Same for the white community - if they tolerate their evil 5%, or if they excuse the other groups evil 5 % things will escalate, and the fringes will grow. That's why sharia is so bad, and why affirmative action is so bad.



[ Parent ]
affirmative action? (none / 0) (#33)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:17:13 PM EST

don't you mean policies favorable to whites?

how in your mind does a tool of bringing people from different societies together get lumped in with attitutes that pull people apart?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

equality is essential (none / 0) (#42)
by minerboy on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:53:37 PM EST

and affirmative action means favoring a particular group. Equality and justice must be synchronous, not asynchronous. So the justification that affirmative action makes up for past wrongs isn't sufficient.



[ Parent ]
correct, in a historical vacuum (none / 0) (#44)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:10:04 PM EST

to favor one group versus another out of the blue is just wrong

but if you expand your timeframe, you see that affirmative action is nothing but a weak and paltry reaction to the favoring of another group for a lot longer period of time and to much more potency and effect

taking history into account, affirmative action makes sense

taking no history into account, affirmative action makes no sense

now tell me how we can talk about any issue surrounding affirmative action meaningfully while ignoring history


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

the premise is wrong (none / 1) (#47)
by minerboy on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:16:17 PM EST

Affirmative action may be justified historically, but fairness and justice cannot be delayed. We can't go back and justify slavery, no matter what we do today. Best we can do is to say from this day forward we will be fair. That's what I meant when I said justice is synchronous.



[ Parent ]
So does that mean (none / 1) (#86)
by mberteig on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 12:30:02 PM EST

that it is just to pardon a criminal who says "sorry" and promises to be good in the future?


Agile Advice - How and Why to Work Agile
[ Parent ]
you mean like Tookie ? (none / 0) (#95)
by minerboy on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:01:00 PM EST

No, I don't believe in pardoning criminals, and if you find any of those evil slaveholders, I will help punish them.



[ Parent ]
I'm sorry, but no. (none / 1) (#92)
by bradasch on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 02:01:25 PM EST

"Best we can do is to say from this day forward we will be fair."

Which did nothing to diminish the effects of slavery, which, in some societies, stand to this day.

You can't simply say "I'm sorry, lets move on". That has the same effect as "Shit happens", or even "It's your problem, pal".

Affirmative action can be a direct form of repayment for the damage caused. It often isn't, and to that I agree with you.

But simply saying "My bad, won't do that again" and leave the reck behind isn't quite fair and just.

[ Parent ]

but the damage is subjective (3.00 / 2) (#94)
by minerboy on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 03:55:57 PM EST

And not caused by the people who are paying for it. This makes justice an extremely vague thing to achieve, and is downright unjust to some people. It would be like someone showing up at your door, and asking for money, because the guy that owned your house 50 years ago was mean to his grandpa, who lived next door way back then, and his mean-ness caused family problems that still effect him.

I don't believe in group guilt - and those that insist on it fuel racism, dispite their good intentions to equal everything out.



[ Parent ]
you still don't understand (none / 0) (#100)
by bradasch on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:30:09 PM EST

and you show some prejudice also.

I don't care about guilt. It doesn't enter my equation.

But if you just don't care for underprivileged people, or if you think it's just not your problem, understand that this attitude is what makes our world have so many unequalities today.

We should all be humanitarian. It's an utopic wish, I know, but your individualism is an open gate for prejudice.

The "people paying for it" isn't important. Don't you get it?

[ Parent ]

Yes, help underpriviliged (none / 1) (#109)
by minerboy on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 06:42:19 PM EST

but not based on race. I live in appalachia, there is alot of rural poor, all white. Their children are the ones paying the price of affirmative action, expecially in terms of access to education, but also in employment oppurtunities. Add to that the pressure from illiegal (and legal) immigration, and you have a recipe for instilling racism. They see the world as unjust, and they're right.



[ Parent ]
Thank you. (none / 0) (#206)
by DavidTC on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 10:22:21 AM EST

You are 100% right.

And affirmative action doesn't help the extremely poor black people, anyway. They can't get jobs at those places, they can't get into the colleges even with slightly lowered standards, and if they did their education suffered too much in grade school and they can't just magically pass now.

It's exactly the same thing with poor white people, so don't think that's racist. It is very hard to become unpoor.

What affirmative action does is hit one exact strata of society. Let's call it lower-middle class. This class has, admittedly, moe black people than it should, on average, but it's still mostly white people. Affirmative action slightly slants the scales towards black people.

It doesn't get anyone out of poverty, which is where the real problem is. Meanwhile, every white lower-middle class white person (and, hell, every white person under that, even though they couldn't actually fill the position, they like to think they could) sees this, and goes 'That's not fair.'.

The 'goal' of affirmative action is to 'equalize' poverty, and that is a fairly idiotic concept. The goal of the policy in this country should be to remove proverty, or at least remove it as an involuntary position, and merely moving jobs around won't accomplish that. (And, like I said, affirmative action actually kicks in too high/late to mess with actual dirt-poor people, so it's actually shuffling the lower-middle class around.)

If affirmative action action were to magically work tomorrow, and the amount of black people at every level of society was suddenly equal, we'd still have a hell of a lot of people living in poverty...just more of them would be white. Poor white people are not idiots and they understand this rather dubious 'goal'.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Fair to assume you're a middle class white guy (none / 0) (#128)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 12:26:51 AM EST

Well do you think that you just landed in a middle class world? Do you think that it's possible that maybe your family and "white" community got to where they got because they were better than their black counterparts? Do you honestly think that the black slaves back in the day were any less capable than the white slave masters? I strongly doubt it...

Do you think that a black guy the same age as your grandfather could have earned as much money in the 40s and 50s as your pop, or sent his black kids to the same college your white parents went to?

You're fucking naieve man.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

do you think (none / 1) (#134)
by minerboy on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:49:09 AM EST

That all white people had/have it good. My grandfather worked the coal mines starting at age 8. he had to go toe to toe with J.P. Morgans thugs, machine guns vs Dynamite, for fair working conditions. The only college in our family came with the help of football, and the G.I. Bill, and significant sacrifice. And still it is extremely difficult for people in my place to get into the legacy schools, while affirmative action leaves minorities of lesser quality in easily.

At the same time there are many middle and upperclass blacks who receive benefits they don't need. You sir are the one that must have lived the priviled naive life.



[ Parent ]
So what's your point? (none / 0) (#138)
by bradasch on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 12:08:58 PM EST

"At the same time there are many middle and upperclass blacks who receive benefits they don't need."

Which is wrong. So what you are saying is that a broken law applied badly to some kind of affirmative action makes every kind of affirmative action wrong?

If take out race of the equation (let's think of an  affirmative action is based on poverty, not race), you will end up with more black people being helped, simply because relatively there is more poor blacks.

See, that would destroy any kind of affirmative action, leaving things as they are.

So yes, we still need affirmative action based on race.

[ Parent ]

Yeah cool (none / 0) (#147)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:07:02 PM EST

But that doesn't change the fact that if your grandfather was black he would have earned less. Your football player would not have gone to college before the mid to late 60s and the GI bill wouldn't have helped the nigres out much.

You're just unwilling to accept the fact that, as a white person, you have a better chance at doing anything than a black person does.

What happens to you when you get pulled over by a cop for example?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

I flatly refuse... (none / 1) (#208)
by DavidTC on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 10:41:17 AM EST

...to accept one kind of racism against white people as payback for another supposedly existing kind of rascism.

I am not a cop. If cops are racist, fix it. You have my full support.

And the reason anyone born today has less oppertunities is solely because of their social strata, and their lack of connections. (Like I said, if not, fix those places. I'm with you 100%.)

It has nothing to do with race, and offering a way to fix it based on race is just wrong. If they are being limited by race, have those bastards standing in their way sued.

No, their condition might, in the past, be based on race, but oddly enough I never hear anyone saying 'Hey, your family came form Ireland in the 50s, and that accounts for their position in society' or 'Your family was Catholic, that accounts for their position in society.' or 'You family came over with the Mayflower to escape religious persecution and had to leave everything behind in England.'.

You see, every family that is poor has something that happened to it to make it poor. Maybe it was who they were, or when they arrived, or someone in the past had psychological problems and gambled or drank the family fortune away. Maybe there was a bastard son that got nothing, maybe their parents died in a car crash and their fortune was stolen by someone.

Almost every poor family has at least one, and probably more than one, sob story behind it if you go far enough back, although they might not know what it is.. And you can't ignore the families who don't have some big story...working generation after generation and never saving up enough money to get out of the rut is a sob story.

However, we have decided to group poor people by race and say 'Your problems must have been caused by the institutional racism that existed until 1965 or so, and we'll help you out of guilt. Everyone else who has a reason for being poor, shut up.'

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

On merit (none / 1) (#48)
by driptray on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:27:55 PM EST

One justification for affirmative action is that the current criteria for "merit" have been created within a sexist/racist regime, and are therefore not truly accurate. But because we can't simply throw off our sexist/racist blinkers at once, it's impossible to simply recast merit in a new and fair way.

So we therefore need a transition period in which affirmative action can be used as a way of helping us to evaluate and determine new criteria for merit.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

this is already being done (none / 0) (#49)
by minerboy on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:45:18 PM EST

In academic circles where it is argued that a persons minority status brings a certain necessary point of view to an environment. Sort of like a chorus that requires so many bass, so many tenors, etc. I tend to think this is specious and needs to be more objective. The people that this most effects, poor working class people, also see merit as an objective thing - and there are damn few jobs at this level where a point of view is that important, and merit means showing up on time, and not slacking. So, when their children are kept out of law school in favor of minorities, it is an injustice in their view, and all the qualitative arguments about points of view, and diversity are meaningless. So from their perspective, it is a personal injustice, and will breed discontent and racism



[ Parent ]
But we don't live in an equal society (none / 0) (#126)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 12:14:54 AM EST

The notion of equality in human society is irrational and impossible to achieve.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
That's why we need to bomb Beirut!!!1!. (2.33 / 3) (#29)
by tetsuwan on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:09:08 PM EST


Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

Good sig (none / 0) (#76)
by Razitshakra on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:43:37 AM EST

Nice to see a fellow Thermostatic fan. I think Joy-Toy was absolutely brilliant.

For all of you that have missed it, go to www.thermostatic.se for some great chip music!

--
Lets ride / You and I / In the midnight ambulance
- The Northern Territories
[ Parent ]
cool (none / 0) (#91)
by tetsuwan on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 01:49:08 PM EST

I just heard this song on P3 pop which was awesome, and I didn't want to forget about the Göteborgsband.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

This is nothing to do with terrorism (3.00 / 6) (#31)
by caek on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:10:34 PM EST

As the author makes clear, and as I found out in the six months I spent in Sydney earlier this year, the racial tribalism in Australia is nothing to do with 9/11, Bali, or even Islam. It's what the author describes: a Southern Hemisphere version of Westside Story that's got way out of hand.

It's typical of our hubris to assume that these quaint, boozed up Australians must be fighting for America, or Britain, or Iraq, but they're not. They have enough of their own problems to fight over on Sunday afternoons. It's just a coincidence that one side is Islam.

[ Parent ]

agreed (none / 1) (#34)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:20:04 PM EST

except people read into EVERYTHING

symbolic thinking is the blessing and curse of our species

you're no more likely to get people to stop thinking symbolically about these events than you are likely to convince me to eat a vegemite sandwich


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I don't know about your Vegemite analogy (none / 1) (#39)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:34:45 PM EST

It's easy to convince out of towners to eat Vegemite. Especially Americans!

In the summer time, all you need to tell them is that the reason Aussies eat Vegemite is because it deters mosquitoes and you'll get bitten less. I've had the joy of watching many Americans chew on a yummy piece of toast with Vegemite in the vague hopes that it will keep those mozzies away (which are huge btw).

Brits aren't so easy, you always end up in a fight about how Marmite is better... Yeah right...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

You're right about the symbolism (none / 1) (#40)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:39:28 PM EST

The problem with the government issues in Oz is that the most covered ones are dealing with foreign policy. Which is really no reflection on Australian society, but more a reflection on US/UK society which, really, is quite irrelevant to most Australian culture.

It's a shame that there is not more coverage of the local issues. Most news that deals with them is either sensationalism (as is the case in this issue) or PR/Advertising...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Hear hear! (none / 1) (#37)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:32:09 PM EST

I've found it laughable that a few news pieces I've seen have even seriously tried to exploit the terrorism/jihad angle.

It's interesting looking at the contrast between Melbourne (my home town) and Sydney in terms of the layout. In Sydney, you've got rich areas and poor areas, migrant areas and white areas all segregated. So I can see how turf would become a point of conflict.

Melbourne's not like that at all. Sure, it's a lot smaller, but everyone's kind of lumped together. Toorak, for example, is one of the more affluent areas, however there are numerous boarding houses and cheap flats peopled by the poorest of the poor. Chapel street, considered to be a middle to upper-class haven has commission flats! Carlton is assumed to be a Greek/Italian suburb yet most of its occupants are students and skips in their late twenties.

I'm not theorising or anything. But I'm sure it's a contributing factor.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

I disagree with your percentages (none / 1) (#38)
by driptray on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:33:27 PM EST

It's not clear that the Cronulla locals represent just 5% of the "white" community. Their sloganeering and general attitude were the Howard government's dog-whistle politics put into (vigorous) practice. They have (or at least had) the tacit support of the mainstream tabloid newspaper and the radio shock-jocks.

Violence in the streets might only be supported by 5%, but the cause they are fighting for is significantly more popular.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

Real or perceived popularity? (3.00 / 2) (#41)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:49:26 PM EST

I ask because I don't necessarily think that the views expressed by said shock jocks and stupid skips and lebs that beat up on each other really are that popular.

Firstly, we are told by the shock jocks, and other media sources, that this is a racial issue. However, no one has actually polled the participants as to their views about what this is. Also, the first-hand comments from some of those involved have not really talked about race being a motivation. If anything, most of the reports I've heard from participants are along the lines of "We want revenge because those skips bashed Turpak" and "If the police aren't going to protect us from getting stabbed, then we'll take matters into our own hands."

Personally, I haven't heard one interviewee say, those skips/lebs can fuck off and go home (or whatever).

It's kind of like the war on terror (which is really an exercise in creating terror). The broader mainstream media and the shock jocks would lead you to believe that the threat of terrorism is real and that Australians are living in fear of an attack. However, I'm yet to meet someone who actually cites this as their personal opinion. Most people I've spoken to (a lot of very different people) think that it's all a load of bull.

We are being coerced into believing that racial tension is an issue in this country and that people are concerned about terrorism and that workplace agreements are supported by most families. However, the issues I seem to see recurring amongst average people are issues of family and friend, work hours and education. What's seen as issues in Australia is not having enough time to have a Sunday barbeque.

I just notice that most people are more concerned with enjoying the summer than saving the world.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

the glory of statistics (none / 1) (#43)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:06:12 PM EST

"i agree with fighting crime"

99% support

"i agree with fighting crime by bashing inthe skulls of brown people who are the ones who spread crime"

0.1% support

there is your "general attitude" and "tacit support" right there

Violence in the streets might only be supported by 5%, but the cause they are fighting for is significantly more popular.

yeah it's amazing how warped and diluted the idea of the "cause they are fighting for" can be from one person to the next


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And who's to blame? (none / 1) (#93)
by bradasch on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 02:14:28 PM EST

IMO, ourselves. We love to hear about the fringes activity in Fox News. While they are 5% of our community, they represent 95% of our attention.

But only when it happens near us, or when it shows out-of-proportion reactions, we do something.

We just have to act on common sense, goodwill and moderation and stop being quiet and watching things get out of proportion on the newspapers. Guess it's like your sig.

"...that the fringes will feed off each other and grow each other..."

Don't expect that to stop on politics. It's like it's been said to exaustion: ultra-conservatives in the west need the  "islamonazis" of the east (and vice-versa) to justify their existence and to sell their agenda. If you can convince people that fearing an ultra-radical enemy isn't the best solution, you may have some good results, but I don't think that will happen soon.

[ Parent ]

unfortunately (none / 0) (#104)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:51:23 PM EST

we live in a world where a theocracy is building nukes and whose leader goes around saying the holocaust never happened

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/index.html

yes, fanatics in one community feed off of fanatics in another community

but it is also true that fanatics breed quite comfortably on their own


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

People should just leave the Lebanese alone. (2.62 / 16) (#19)
by Ignore Amos on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:27:37 PM EST

What women chose to do in the bedroom is their own business.

And that explains why airplanes carry cargo on small boats floating in their cargo aquarium. - jmzero

and we can't persecute the australians either (1.40 / 5) (#20)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:43:02 PM EST

those australian cities of vienna, graz, and salzburg are peaceful cities, it's those germans to the north of australia you have to worry about


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
OMG U R SO CLVR !!one1!!1! % (1.42 / 7) (#21)
by creativedissonance on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:43:57 PM EST




ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
I would be interested to know several things (1.00 / 5) (#25)
by t1ber on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:49:44 PM EST

  1.  Who was there first?  Did they show up in the morning when the beach wasn't populated?  Did they just kick the ball around after showing up?
  2.  What's the law about the use of public space in Australia?
  3.  Was there any attempt to segregate the playing field from the lounging areas of the beach?
  4.  Where were the police while all this was going on?
Other then that, well written.

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

Some general answers (3.00 / 2) (#32)
by driptray on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:16:51 PM EST

I'll reply to your questions in a general way. Conflict on the beach between ball-playing people and sun-bathing people happens all the time. Even without the issue of ball-games (or frisbees, or anything else), the beach is public space, and there's a constant negotiation over the use of that space. That negotiation is almost always peaceful and silent, as people basically share the same ideas about the best way to share the space, and in any case, most people don't want trouble.

Tension arises when people ignore (deliberately or otherwise) that process of negotiation, and simply blunder about treading on proverbial toes. I'm guessing that's what happened in this case. I don't think it's got much to do with the soccer players being Lebanese - it's more to do with them being aggressive violent dickheads that were probably enjoying the discomfort of the people around them.

The police were somewhere else. I've never seen a cop at the beach. Which in general I'm happy about.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

It's not about them being Lebanese, (3.00 / 2) (#65)
by New Me on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:14:16 AM EST

it's about them being middle eastern. As much as I don't like to sound racist - I've lived in both European and Asian countries long enough to notice this kind of behaviour - "I'll do what the fuck I want and there's nothing you can do about it" - it is overwhelmingly more common in middle eastern societies then in [central|north] European societies. To there credit (or disgrace) I can say that they do it in to each other in their home countries just as often (if not more).

--
"He hallucinated, freaked out, his aneurysm popped, and he died. Happened to me once." --Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

It's not about them being middle eastern, (3.00 / 4) (#71)
by perplext on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:39:26 AM EST

it's about them being young punks. As much as I don't like to sound "ageist" - I've lived in both old and young countries long enough to notice this kind of behaviour - "I'll do what the fuck I want and there's nothing you can do about it" - it is overwhelmingly more common in the 15-25 demographic then among those in their 30s, 40s, 50s, or 60s. To their credit (or disgrace) I can say that they do it in to each other in their own age cohorts just as often (if not more).

you've got to be kidding me.
-------------------------------------------
ad nauseum ad fucktardum

[ Parent ]

I assume you've never lived in the middle east? (none / 1) (#72)
by New Me on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:15:51 AM EST

Otherwise you would have known first hand that, as sad as it is, there is truth in my previous comment.

--
"He hallucinated, freaked out, his aneurysm popped, and he died. Happened to me once." --Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

you misunderstand (none / 1) (#73)
by perplext on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:27:25 AM EST

My dissatisfaction wasn't with your conclusion -- it was with the argument on which you based it.

I'll willingly admit you've probably loads more experience than I if you've in fact lived in the Middle East, and in fact I'm inclined to agree with the underlying statement in your previous post, although that doesn't make the argument any stronger.

I've just come to expect more compellingly positions from K5'ers, I suppose -- no offense intended. ;)

[ Parent ]

edit:"compellingly supported positions"$ (none / 0) (#75)
by perplext on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:32:40 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I've never lived in the Middle East (3.00 / 11) (#78)
by A Bore on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 09:13:53 AM EST

However, I was for a time a memeber of a high school marching band. This has granted me sufficient experience to challenge your account of Middle Eastern attitudes.

[ Parent ]
Probably (none / 1) (#156)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 08:20:33 PM EST

But his statement about the youth being antagonistic is spot on. I've been walking down to the market on a Friday night to get some smokes and had 10 youths of different ethnicities come up and try and take a swing at me. I've seen plenty of kids on public transport threaten to beat people up because they didn't want to give up their chairs.

Maybe the middle east is more prone to violence and inconsiderate behaviour, but it's a common plague in our society amongst the youth as well.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Interesting (none / 0) (#146)
by PrinceSausage on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:05:52 PM EST

The friendly and lovable people of Spain claim that the swedes who have moved there don't want to assimilate and just drink and pick fights. I have had far less trouble with locals being assholes in Europe and US (oh and Australia) than in Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and Asia.

[ Parent ]
Easy (none / 1) (#36)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:25:51 PM EST

1. If the ball players were there first, the sunbathers would have sat elsewhere (logically). The problem is that, and I don't know if you've noticed this where you are, a lot of young people derive pleasure not from the sport they are playing, but from annoying or harrassing those around them. This is most likely what happened on this occasion - I've seen this exact kind of thing more than enough times and in many different situations.

2. Interestingly enough Australian law states that any group of people numbering greater than five is an illegal assembly, unless they have a permit. So if you have a barbque at the park, that's illegal. So in such cases as this, the people affected by this game could have legally callled up the police and had the youths arrested. 3. I strongly doubt it. When you're on the beach, playing fields can be pretty random. I've never been to Cronulla. But most Australian beaches I've ever visited have been quite large and I don't understand why the soccer players couldn't have walked further down the beach to a less populated area. That's what I'd have done if I was playing with my mates... 4. Where do you think? They were eating donuts of course!

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Alan Jones (3.00 / 6) (#50)
by coljac on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 11:28:55 PM EST

Shock-Jock and Limbaugh-style blowhard Alan Jones can take some of the blame for this awful event. He did everything possible to fan the flames.

Check out this article:

He assured his huge audience he "understood" why that famous text message went out and he read it right through again on air. "Come to Cronulla this weekend to take revenge. This Sunday every Aussie in the Shire get down to North Cronulla to support the Leb and wog bashing day ..."
Real responsible journalism.

---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey
Alan Jones and the incident in the public toilet (2.80 / 5) (#52)
by driptray on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 11:41:26 PM EST

I have nothing against men getting blow jobs from other men in public toilets. I'm sure it happens all the time, and it doesn't affect me at all.

But I'm also sure that Alan Jones would hate for his audience to know that he was busted for getting a blow job from a man in a public toilet. He's threatened to sue everybody who's ever dared mention this notorious incident.

Rush Limbaugh was (is) a junkie, and Alan Jones is gay. I don't have a moral stance on either of those two things, but it sure is funny seeing these conservative talk-show hosts have their private lives run so counter to their public ravings.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

Alan Jones was with George Michael? (none / 1) (#97)
by kuroXhin on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:42:29 PM EST

I thought Wham was a brit group, not aussie. Oh well.

The Economist - The Playboy of the new world order!
[ Parent ]

Proof? (none / 1) (#98)
by Horthy Hosthoh on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:43:14 PM EST

Got some?

[ Parent ]
There isn't much proof (none / 1) (#103)
by driptray on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:46:53 PM EST

Jones has set his lawyers on anybody who dares whisper anything about this incident. The facts are that he was charged by British police in 1988 for "offensive behaviour" in a public toilet. The charges were eventually dropped. I'm not sure if he actually got a blow job in the toilet, or was just soliciting for one (and unluckily picked a plain-clothes/off-duty cop).

Yes, Alan Jones and George Michael have a bit in common.

I recall it got quite a bit of publicity at the time, and it's amazing how effectively Jones has been able to hush it up.

You can catch the threads from this incident with this google search.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

It's interesting that... (none / 1) (#125)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 12:13:21 AM EST

The pages are all deleted... This is ample proof that cease and desist orders have been taken out upon the websites...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
You zeroed me for agreeing with you (none / 0) (#237)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 09:14:39 PM EST

What's with that?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Simple mistake nt (none / 1) (#239)
by driptray on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 09:47:30 PM EST


--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]
Yeah, that's what my dad told me on my birthday (none / 1) (#244)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 10:06:11 PM EST

No tangent

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Alan Jones toilet comment by Chopper Read (none / 0) (#312)
by whassaname on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 11:33:58 PM EST

Coming in a bit late with my comment here, but anyway.... I vaguely recall years ago a talk-show that had Alan Jones and Chopper Read as guests. Alan Jones was going off and calling Chopper scum and all manner of names. Chopper had the perfect retort, shut Jones up right away. A quick Google found this.. http://www.echonews.com/1018/politics.html " Admittedly, the cat fight involving the aging and embittered disc jockey John Laws and what he euphemistically describes as the unattractive troika of Alan Jones, David Flint and John Howard is of zero national importance and almost no real public interest, but for political and media groupies it has been the most fun we have had since Chopper Read deflated Jones at his most pompous with the devastating line: "At least I've never been arrested in a London public lavatory." "

[ Parent ]
What's most interesting about Jones' comments (none / 1) (#53)
by D Jade on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 12:14:58 AM EST

Is the fact that under the new laws, he should be jailed for seddition. I mean his on-air comments clearly constitute an open incitement of violence. Of course, he's protected by the fact that he was simply documenting the events as "journalists" should. However, it all comes back to dogspeak, doesn't it?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Sedition (none / 1) (#57)
by coljac on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 01:12:14 AM EST

There are a few people saying that the sedition laws should be used. But we all know they won't be unless the pepetrators are Muslims.

In any case I'm against sedition laws. Banning nasty SMS messages won't solve this problem.

---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey
[ Parent ]

Sedition and riots (none / 0) (#58)
by driptray on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 01:23:07 AM EST

This article shows the extent to which the new sedition laws could be used for events around these riots. It's scary stuff really.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]
Racial villification laws (none / 0) (#66)
by extra dry on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:55:18 AM EST

I am not sure if I support these laws in general, but I do when they apply to inciting racial violence. In a country with as little free speech as Australia, you'd think it was fair to go after the worst violators first. I remember some Christians were busted for giving out anti-Islam pamphlets earlier this year. Surely advertising "Bash a leb and wog" day is a bit worse than that?
Those impostors then, whom they style Mathematicians, I consulted without scruple - St Augustine, Confessions
[ Parent ]
the dog-whistle (2.75 / 4) (#54)
by chlorus on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 12:38:45 AM EST

I think you're absolutely right about dog-whistle politics (from my perspective over here in North America, at least). The problem is, if something in public is being condemned without explicitly being called racist, there is a larger percentage of the population who will tacitly approve of these mob violence tactics. You have to call a spade a spade, otherwise people will see it as an endorsement to fetishize or imitate the violence against minorities.

Peahippo: Coked-up internet tough guy or creepy pedophile?

irony: 'call a spade a spade' % (2.00 / 2) (#59)
by creativedissonance on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 02:27:01 AM EST




ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
events in Cronulla surprise even me (3.00 / 13) (#55)
by ccdotnet on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 12:51:57 AM EST

I grew up (as a European) in Singapore, so a typical after-school crowd at my place would feature most shades from pasty white to jet black, and most variations in between. While it's true our parents on the whole lived an existence in rarified (and airconditioned) air, clinging to their relative ex-pat community, the kids tended to mix freely.

Arriving in Australia as a 12 year old was a huge culture shock. Not because Aussies ate the wrong food, played the wrong version of football, or had wombats instead of dogs as pets. It was the racial intolerance displayed by the majority, both to the indigenous population, and immigrants, that was truly shocking. The contrast between life in Singapore and Australia was tremendous. I found it very, very hard to come to terms with typical teenage/high-school attitudes to different races and cultures.

Over the years I guess my outrage has withered a little - I might even conceed things have improved a little, despite the groundswell which briefly bloomed around Pauline Hanson's "One Nation" party.

On the whole, in 2005, Australia is still a highly racially intolerant society.

This is a nation happy to claim its place in Asia when it suits us (economically), and we also boast our "multiculturalism" when it suits us. But in reality, Australia is still clinging to its European heritage and fighting change and racial integration the way a lot of other western democracies are (France one of the better examples). Our leaders play the race card when it suits, it can even win them elections.

So I'm pretty jaded and already not particular proud of my new country's record on this issue. But the events in Cronulla have surprised even me.

These youths (on both sides of the racial divide) clearly lack any respect for society at large, and the police in particular. Would they be so bold if the Australian army was patrolling Sydney streets, instead of the police?

Have they no clue at all how lucky they are to live in a country where the army doesn't need to?

interesting (none / 0) (#113)
by Paul Jakma on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:40:24 PM EST

It was the racial intolerance displayed by the majority, both to the indigenous population, and immigrants, that was truly shocking.

I've been around a few australians in Europe and noticed the odd condescending remarks about "abos". Professional, educated, middle-class australians too. I've always wondered since then whether the latent racism I've seen in several australians is representative of australians in general.


[ Parent ]

Here's my completely unscientific estimate (3.00 / 3) (#114)
by driptray on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:54:07 PM EST

I'd say that 25% of Australians are "actively" racist, in that they conciously identify with racist beliefs.

At the opposite end I'd say that 25% of Australians are "actively" anti-racist, in that they are sensitive to racial issues.

And then there are the 50% in the middle who can go either way depending on the situation.

The anti-racist 25% are doing a lot of hand-wringing and making a lot of noise at the moment. The middle 50% are deploring the violence. The racist 25% are staying quiet because they're having fun with it all.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

Insensitive more than anything... (none / 0) (#154)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 08:01:57 PM EST

Another thing that's huge in Australia is Black comedy. By that, I mean nigger comedy. Racial slurs are a completely non-issue in Australia because we get to see all of the US, UK and others' examples of racism. Also, when people use the word abo, quite often it's referring to a certain subset of the group. That doesn't make it right and I'm not excusing it. But there are times when you've got a dollar to your name and you're going down to get a pack of noodles and some milk and some Koori person starts harassing you and saying that you HAVE to give them the dollar because YOU owe it to THEM!

Unfortunately though, our government is too busy blowing the US administration in the name of "economic progress" (what a joke) to bother with any social issues this country's facing.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

I give you three just for the wombats comment... (1.50 / 2) (#124)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 12:09:49 AM EST

That's pretty racist in itself (if not, ignorant). I still see plenty more dogs down at the park than I do wombats.

I think it depends whereabouts you go in this large country as to the amount of tolerance you find.

Example; the riots on the weekend come as no surprise to me as they happened in Sydney. That town where they had a whole bunch of US gangster styled drive bys in one weekend. Also a place where skinheads used to make sport of beating up and raping gay men.

You're talking about a city where girls actually have to beat men up in clubs because they're such assholes. Where the division between classes is apparent by which suburb you live in.

Example 2; going to Alice Springs and taking a photo of a tree and then having five Koori people come up to you demanding that you pay them 10 dollars because they own the tree. Note that this tree was growing in the middle of a round-a-bout.

Speak to the people in Alice Springs and they'll tell you that they get harassed when they walk out of the pub. Being told that they HAVE to buy beer for the Kooris because of native title.

Go down to Smith Street in Collingwood and wait to get asked by a Koori for a dollar. Listen to the story about how she was just reunited with her brother who was part of the stolen generation and how they're doing it tough and all of that. Then witness them show you their new 600 dollar phone that they bought yesterday. Then watch as they open their wallet in at Safeway and pull out a wad full of fifties. Then see them the next day telling a completely different story to someone else.

Now you can say that these are massive generalisations, and I'd agree with you. They are not representative of the whole. But usually the so-called "racist" attitudes are actually attitudes towards a certain behaviour and would be common both to blacks, whites and any other color.

A lot of the issues in Australian culture wrongly get labelled issues of race when they are more about issues of culture (which is not a racial category). You hear talk of dole-bludgers and it's assumed that this stigma applies to everyone on the dole. But it doesn't. It refers to the small percentage of people out there who are professionals when it comes to rorting the system.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

How (none / 0) (#161)
by fairthought on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 01:29:25 AM EST

can the wombat comment possibly be considered racist? Or were you referring to something else being racist?

I can't imagine how there can be any connection between racism and wombats. Unless wombat is actually a code word for a particular race over there.

[ Parent ]

Oh well let's attack use of racial stereotypes (none / 0) (#236)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 09:07:56 PM EST

By using a racial stereotype. That's a real good point of logic.

Beyond that, obviously you have no understanding of the social issues that you have witnessed here or else you would have more to come back with than questioning how the use of a racial stereotype is racist.

The worst part of your use of such a stereotype is that you've lived here and you know it's untrue. Obviously you thought you'd inject some humour but you come of looking like a dumb American tourist (note that this does not refer to all USians, just a certain subset that falls for the Vegemite strategy).

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Don't confuse me with the original poster. (none / 1) (#278)
by fairthought on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:09:16 PM EST

I've never been to Australia. I have no idea how a comment about wombats can be considered racist so I asked. You didn't answer. I didn't attack anything and I don't know how you could have interpreted it that I did.

Having pet wombats sounds like it would be more of a cultural issue than a racial one. You yourself were careful to draw attention to this distinction in your earlier post. Can you try to educate me about the racial stereotypes in Australia so that I can make sense of your evaluation of the wombat comment?

[ Parent ]

my apologies $ (none / 0) (#281)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 07:19:42 PM EST



You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
IMO, lifeguards are to blame... (2.37 / 8) (#60)
by creativedissonance on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 02:32:54 AM EST

caveat: this opinion based on the limited info I have at hand.

that said, I think the lifeguards did something really fucking stupid.  even if they were all volunteers, they probably have some sort of official uniform and have at least perceived, if not actual, authority.

to abuse that authority and turn what should have been a normal-if-irritating bunch of hoodlums playing soccer into a national incident shows an incredible lack of sound judgement.


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n

The police (2.50 / 2) (#61)
by sholden on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 03:08:31 AM EST

It's the fault of the police. Over the last decade or so they have been "reformed" so that they try not to offend people. And of course being arrested is offensive. They have let things get out of control by not enforcing the rule of law. http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=581 is a couple of years old and pretty much nailed what happened.

Of course it takes two to tango, and the white Australian dick heads took the opportunity to have a small scale riot (and again why were there not a dozen or two early arrests of the main troublemakers before the crowd got going?) due to the everpresent smaller group of thugs - in this case the rascist getting there chance to beat up anyone who looked vaguely dark.

It's a failure of law and order and that puts it at the feet of the police. Once the genie is out of the bottle it's not simple to get it back in - it's going to be a hard problem to solve there's a generation of thugs in Sydney who know they can do anything they like and the police won't stop them.

Of course you also don't want to return to the days of the police rounding up any dark skinned people and charging them with the trifecta just for morning kicks.

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
I encourage everyone... (3.00 / 2) (#63)
by driptray on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:00:19 AM EST

...to read the link in the parent article. It's an impressive example of a racist dickhead in a police uniform, with a major chip on his shoulder. He's also one of the guys associated with shock-jock Alan Jones, and you can see elsewhere in these comments the role that he played in all this.

And for people wondering what "trifecta" means in this context, it's police-speak for the act of charging people with the following 3 charges:

  • offensive language
  • resisting arrest
  • assaulting police

usually where the police harrass somebody, who responds by swearing at the police, who then grabs the person, who then pushes the police away, and voila, you have the trifecta.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

The lifeguards? Get real! (none / 0) (#123)
by D Jade on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 11:19:49 PM EST

Have you ever been on the beach and been kicking the footy in the wrong place?

All the lifeguards do is come over and say something laidback like, "Hey guys, do you mind taking the game further down the beach because there's lots of people here?"

That's fair enough!

What you would have gotten (and this has nothing to do with race and more to do with yout) would be a response to the extent of "Fuck you!" The lifeguards would then say that they don't have any problem, but that it's unfair to the rest of the beach goers.

They would have asked them to move and then would have gone back to their patrol.

Then, the youths would have come up and started harassing them.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure you actually read the article. (none / 1) (#127)
by creativedissonance on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 12:24:54 AM EST

author clearly stated that the lifeguards were acting in an inflammatory manner.  that is what I was referring to.


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
Full story, not sensational bias (none / 0) (#130)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 12:37:48 AM EST

Interesting to note that the full story as it appeared when the bashings ocurred pointed out that after much antagonism from the group of youths there were some inflammatory remarks made. But the article that appears post-riot only mentions the inflammatory remarks on behalf of the lifeguards.

Either way, it's pretty much an unwritten law that you don't mess with the lifeguards. If they tell you to move on, you respect their wishes. After all, if you've ever been caught in a rip, even if you could swim out of it, you would know that these guys are fucking heroes when they grab you and pull you back to shore.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

doesn't matter. (none / 1) (#139)
by creativedissonance on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 01:34:38 PM EST

I've been a lifeguard here in the US, and lifeguards are trained in minimal crowd control (i.e. rowdy idiots) as well as life saving.  it is part of the job.

there is no reason for this to have spiraled out of control.  the lifeguards should have attempted to reasonably deal with the situation, and if that failed, call the police.  These things could have been dealt with in a professional matter, and were not, and have since spiraled out of control.

If Alia causes trouble, it is the fault of authority for not forseeing and preventing the trouble - Frank Herbert


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]

Not really the same... (none / 0) (#153)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 07:57:59 PM EST

There in the US if you have trouble makers on the beach, it's quite possible that you would get shot given that anyone can own a gun.

We don't really have that problem here and primarily, the lifeguards spend their time watching the water. Beachgoers tend to police themselves fairly well... well usually they do.

I'm yet to ever see a lifesaver in Australia do anything but save people from the water, sit on their chairs and talk to hot chicks and occasionally tell kids to stop fucking around (and I've spent most of my life round the beach and have many friends in the service).

Aussies are fairly brash too. I mean, it's a common occurrence to hurl abuse at dickheads on the street. I think that comes back to the gun factor as well.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

'occsionally tell kids to stop fucking around' (none / 0) (#178)
by creativedissonance on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 02:59:15 PM EST

thats all this should have been.

if it escalates beyond that, the police should be called.  

I'm almost 100% certain that the lifeguards did not follow the procedures they were trained to follow.  Adding racist invective on top of this only compounded the error.


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]

All right then... (none / 1) (#231)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 06:37:20 PM EST

Go down the road and when you see some black kids doing the wrong thing, you go and ask them not to do it... See how quickly that gets turned into a racial issue. Unless you seriously believe that they're going to say "Sorry sir, I'll stop that." No, they'll probably call you derogatory names, based on your color. Then after a minute or two (if you're still standing) you might call them nigger or something.

The only issue of race was that there was some white guys telling some middle eastern guys not to do something. It turned into a racial issue when the middle eastern guys decided to bash the white guys. The situation probably would have panned out the same in reverse.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Addendum (none / 0) (#284)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 07:44:48 PM EST

Which is why I don't think that it's a racial issue at all...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
uhh, no. (none / 0) (#302)
by creativedissonance on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 02:32:50 PM EST

"Then after a minute or two (if you're still standing) you might call them nigger or something."

You obviously don't know who you're talking to.  I think this conversation no longer serves any purpose.


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]

Just another case (1.11 / 18) (#62)
by NaCh0 on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 03:20:05 AM EST

of muslims not capable of getting along with their neighbors.

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
you would do well to remember (3.00 / 6) (#64)
by chlorus on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:37:18 AM EST

that not all Lebanese are Muslims, a large number are Christian. This is also true of other ethnic Arab populations.

Peahippo: Coked-up internet tough guy or creepy pedophile?
[ Parent ]

sedition laws (2.50 / 2) (#67)
by m a r c on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 06:31:42 AM EST

The sedition laws were passed to allow extra government control within a terrorist environment. Why are they being used to curb the local populace? This is not the first time there have been riots, were there no sufficient laws before? If so called terroist laws are used in a relatively minor siutation how much control have we given our government?


I got a dog and named him "Stay". Now, I go "Come here, Stay!". After a while, the dog went insane and wouldn't move at all.

Ethnic descriptors in the media (2.50 / 2) (#68)
by extra dry on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 06:31:54 AM EST

While I don't have an opinion as to whether they are justified at all, their current inconsistent use is clearly racist. They are primarily used when the perpetrator of violence is not Anglo-Saxon-Celtic and the victim is. Even in this case not all reports said that the 4,000 strong crowd was all Anglo-Saxon-Celtic. It would seem that the media are unable to recognize or are resigned to this overall trend in their reporting, and will only consider whether each individual case is reported properly.

As an example, two White men raped an Asian (underage) girl a few years ago, and they themselves admitted the rape was racially motivated. Nonetheless, neither the ethnicity of the perpetrators or victim, nor the perpetrators' motivation was reported in all but one channel.

If there is a tendency amongst Middle-Eastern men towards violence (against Women), then this is something that needs to be discussed, but such a discussion must be based on facts, not the impression given by biased reporting.
Those impostors then, whom they style Mathematicians, I consulted without scruple - St Augustine, Confessions

Great article (3.00 / 11) (#69)
by nebbish on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:05:48 AM EST

Yet again I learn more about the situation from K5 than from watching the news and reading the newspapers.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

True dat (none / 0) (#99)
by My Momma Sewed My New Blue Jeans on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:48:19 PM EST

Yes, where else in the world wide web can I find out about Lemon Juice's agonising (likely fictional) search for a job, his hidden shame and sorrows. Not on any daily on this planet, I assure you.

[ Parent ]
I didn't meet "wogs" or "lebs" (2.66 / 6) (#70)
by lugumbashi on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:10:21 AM EST

I visited Oz for six weeks in 2003 and another two weeks earlier this year. I didn't meet anyone who would be happy to characterise themselves as "wogs" or "lebs".

I did meet Coptic Egyptians, Greeks, Indigenous Australians, Irish, Koreans, Chinese, a Malaysian, Lebanese and a couple of Filipinos. I also met some white Australians who have ancestors from Britain or Ireland. Naturally they were all Australian citizens and most were born there.

My girlfriend likes to watch Home and Away. Personally I can't wait until it is over so I can watch the Simpsons. However I grin and bear it or cook the dinner until it is over. So when I went to Australia I suppose I mentally thought it would be like that.

Now I am back I notice there are never any characters in Australian soaps who are anything other than white and European derived. And then only northwestern European. I don't remember ever seeing a Greek, Italian or Lebanese and most certainly never anyone darker than a surfer tan.
-"Guinness thaw tool in jew me dinner ouzel?"

Home and Away is not representative. (none / 1) (#77)
by OzJuggler on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:52:15 AM EST

For two reasons:
  • Home and Away is unusual in being exclusively white, and yes it is odd that I've never noticed that before. There are several other Australian soaps (some were even popular) which have non-white characters. For some examples look up The Secret Life of Us, Blue Heelers, A Country Practice, and a Sat morning kids show on the ABC whose name I can't recall right now.
  • Home and Away may be pursuing a predominantly white audience, and there's no law that says they have to show things as they are.
  • Home and Away has the hottest chicks by far. The young actress who plays Tasha is quite possibly the most beautiful girl in the world. Way beyond what any other soap has to offer. :-)


"And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.
[ Parent ]

Wine, women and song (none / 1) (#96)
by Elija on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:20:55 PM EST

You think Tasha from Home and Away is the most beautiful girl in the world?

You probably think Lambrusco is the best wine in the world and the best song in the world is something by Robbie Williams.

*snorts with derision into his 1982 Rioja while listening to Schubert and being fellated by his Croatian girlfriend*


[ Parent ]

Hurrah for the secret life of us. (none / 0) (#133)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:29:03 AM EST

Really liked that show, it was on in the UK for a couple of seasons late at night. Funny and with hot women :)

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
You should come see it for real! (none / 0) (#152)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 07:53:40 PM EST

The women here are sooooo fit it's hard to stay faithful. Sure there's fatties and uglies, but they just buffer all of the hotties!

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Uh, Dude. (none / 0) (#205)
by OzJuggler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 10:07:24 AM EST

In your dreams maybe.

No matter where you go, about 10% are hot and the rest are simply not. And it always seems all the hot ones are taken already. :-( Probably you don't even notice the ones that aren't hot, so its easy to think they are more common than actuality.

It should be said that I have absurdly high standards on this which is why I'm terminally single.

And it should also moreover additionally definitely clearly be said that Claudia Karvan has aged quite gracefully and is still hotter than most women you see day-to-day. But I don't see CK as merely a sex object, because I respect her output as an actor. I still think "Dating The Enemy" was her best work. 8-)~~~

OzJuggler.
"And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.
[ Parent ]

la di da... (none / 1) (#213)
by My Momma Sewed My New Blue Jeans on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 06:14:39 PM EST

8-)~~~ What are you trying to say with this? It looks like a diaphragm punctured by the sheer force of of wad being blown through some guy's detumescing penis. Incidentally, I once saw a feature on Eat Carpet featuring the lovely CK naked (or near it) in some soft-core, high-brow short film.

[ Parent ]
Yeah well... I've travelled to some other places (none / 0) (#232)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 06:40:32 PM EST

And I don't agree with your ratio. 9 to 1 in favour of ugly bitches?

Man, you need to get out more.

I've never seen so many fit people in the one place as I have in Oz. I've never heard of a traveller that doesn't come here and go "Damn those women are fine."

Your standards must be incredibly high if your ratio is 9 to 1... What the fuck is wrong with you man?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

I'd like to take this opportunity (3.00 / 6) (#84)
by daani on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 10:49:08 AM EST

on behalf of myself, my countrymen, Prime Minister John Howard, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the Commonwealth of Australia to again formally apologise for Home and Away. We're really all very sorry about that one. Our bad.

[ Parent ]
It's not as bad as Headland! (none / 0) (#121)
by D Jade on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 11:14:31 PM EST

Geez, that show is more budget than the (now) defunct "Breakers".

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
You're excused. (none / 0) (#162)
by For Whom The Bells Troll on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 04:34:36 AM EST

Mostly for producing Who dares wins.

Ah, memories.

---
The Big F Word.
[ Parent ]

Ada Nicodemou (none / 1) (#120)
by D Jade on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 11:13:53 PM EST

Is an actor on Home and Away. She's Greek in real life and on the show. Her family is Greek and her (show)brother was on for a while as well, also Greek.

There's also a Serbian family on Neighbours, although they did just get blown up when they went to fly to Queensland... They should have flied Qantas.

Charlie from wildside is another Greek and there's also a show called Pizza which is bascially all about Lebanese people in Sydney.

You may have met a lot of people, however I strongly disagree with you that none of these groups would not call themselves wogs. For starters, one guy wrote a movie called "The Wog Boy".

My girl is Serbian and all of her family and friends use the term wogs. I grew up with many Greeks and Italians, also using the expression to describe their people. When they say it, they'll say something like "He's such a wog", meaning that he is very traditional and ethnic in his outlook.

There is plenty of representation of Europeans in Australian television and it's more likely that you didn't know that they were so. Which just goes to show that it's not as much of an issue in our culture. The fact is that it's a complete non-issue and the media is wrong to turn this issue (and others) into a purely racial one.

You're right that most of these people of different ethnicities were born here. That's why it's a non-issue. We younger Australians all grew up in a society full of Euros, Asians, Arabs and Africans and all of these groups have always been Australians in our eyes. The race issue is hype.

And the main reason the Koori population is underrepresented on television is mainly for political reasons. It seems that any comments or representation of the Koori population will draw massive criticism from the radical Koori community (those that are opposed to integration and/or land occupation).Even Kooris who have covered the issue have been criticised by their people.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Good Article, uncomfortable truths. (2.81 / 11) (#74)
by OzJuggler on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:27:41 AM EST

I live in Brisbane.

In hindsight I now wonder why I didn't hear about these riots until the Lebanese gangs struck back. I find it difficult to believe that 5000 people going on a racist rampage on a Sydney beach was NOT considered news of national importance and interest, but somehow 25 cars with broken windows was prime-time material.

I was having an incidental conversation today with a guy at work. In talking about the value of international travel, he said how shocked he had been when he once went on a holiday to Zimbabwe, and got off the plane and realised within seconds that he was the only white person in a city full of black people. He said it gave him a feeling for what its like to live as a racial minority. I said I had a similar experience during the 6 years my family lived on the somewhat troubled island of Bougainville in PNG. We contrasted this with Brisbane in which you basically never see black people - especially not in the City. Aborigines are also few and far between and although they self-identify themselves as "black", factually their skin rarely lives up to such descriptions. (Didn't you know? Brown is the new Black! C-: )

I'd like to think that my childhood as a white minority vaccinated me against racism; that I could never think such brutally simple thoughts because my experience had shown me what it is like from the other point of view.

But now I know better.

The thing is that we are informed by our experiences and we act on our beliefs. Some of our beliefs are grounded on raw sensory experience, what we might call first hand knowledge or "the school of hard knocks". But some of our beliefs are based on vicarious knowledge - stories told by friends and figures in authority, or based on projections of (or analogies with) similar experiences.

This means that whilst one set of experiences can leave you with one outlook, a later set of experiences can reverse the lessons you took from the first set. I think our brains need to be able to do this because lessons learned in one environment may not be appropriate to a new environment and we need to adapt to changing circumstances.

In trying to reduce the problems of racism we must first understand not only what racism is in behavioural terms, but to also understand how racist thinking begins. The uncomfortable truth that some may want to sweep under the carpet is that racist thinking begins in some cases with actual first hand knowledge. The truth is that while most racists trumpet their bigotry out of sheer ignorance and scapegoating, some racists are personally justified in their beliefs. If you accept that we are informed by our experiences, and you accept that some people have had bad experiences with an ethnic group, then you must accept that some people are justifiably racist. I'm not one of those people, but I've met two of them. Their stories are worth other threads by themselves, but it should suffice to say that they are credible. I don't condone racist behaviour in the slightest, but I also can't fault someone for learning lessons which in context would seem natural, obvious, and necessary.

So now to the big question: Are white australians racist? Uh, yeah I think we are a little bit. A deplorable feature, but where does it come from?

What is worrying is how effective our collective prolonged exposure to media beatups and other vicarious knowledge must really be in order to eventually replace the first hand knowledge that we gain as children - the experience that tells us that most people most of the time, regardless of their skin colour, are harmless and often helpful.
This exposure to bigotry and selective reporting adds a huge glut of vicarious knowledge which skews our risk assessments and apparently is even capable of convincing 5000 people to go off on a racial witch hunt.

The good news is that the same mechanism can eradicate racism. If people can be convinced to leave their comfort zone and interact with people from other ethnic groups often enough then their actual experience will usually inform their judgement in an amicable way.

OzJuggler.
"And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.

You assume that either group are minorities though (none / 0) (#118)
by D Jade on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 10:33:47 PM EST

They're not though. In the area of Cronulla sure. But when you walk around Australia as a white person, it's easy to feel like you're in the minority as well.

The biggest problem with a lot of the European youths is that they harbour the same racist attitudes to other ethnical groups (ie: Serbs and Croatians) that their parents fleed from. It doesn't seem that race is really the reason though, I just think it's the excuse.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

The riot was primetime (none / 0) (#122)
by Scrymarch on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 11:16:28 PM EST

Led the headlines.  You just missed it.  The reprisals were a followup story.

Also, for any non-Australians reading and getting the wrong idea, I just ate lunch in the Queen Street mall and it was like a friggin Benneton commercial.  Ok, less pretentious and including a few ugly people.

Also, to any English people reading, with respect to the smug astonishment I expressed towards your own race riots in Bradford in 2001: sorry about that.  We suck as well.

Also, to any rioters reading: you're complete fucktards.

[ Parent ]

Okay, absence of evidence, but wtf? (none / 0) (#204)
by OzJuggler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 09:30:30 AM EST

I don't watch the TV news, I never buy newspapers, and at most I might scan the ABC headlines RSS feed every 2nd day. Gee I wonder why I missed it. The news is mostly rubbish anyway. I figure I'm less propagandized if I don't watch it. Less media beatups. Less car crashes. Less sport. Less Bush speeches. Less bad news that I couldn't influence anyway.

As for "getting the wrong idea" about Brisbane's skin tone distribution, I'm actually not sure what you mean with the Benetton reference. For me that conjures up images full of white people in multicoloured shirts and scarves. That sounds too easy. I'm guessing you're saying the opposite - that Brisbane is a rainbow of skin tones. I don't know what Brisbane you're talking about but it can't be the one I live in. I walk up and down Queen St every week day. At a rough estimate I'd say 70 percent white, 20 percent asian, and the remainder are too few to count. The only local politicians you ever see on TV or newspapers are white. And seeing more than two or three black people in a week would be unusual.
Last time I checked, rainbows weren't 70% red.

In the suburbs they tend to stick together. For example Sunnybank could be renamed to "Little China". But the CBD should still be a melting pot of ancestries if your story is to be believed. I'll be watching the crowds like a hawk on Monday you can betcher arse on that.

OzJuggler.
"And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.
[ Parent ]

WTF indeed. (none / 0) (#233)
by Scrymarch on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 07:10:57 PM EST

Benneton have a run of commercials flaunting their hip multiracialism.  Though I guess you could interpret my statement as saying Brisbane supports fashionable tokenism, I wasn't meaning to be quite that cynical ... granted that most politicians and public figures in Oz are white, but more on that below.

As for the news, well I sympathise; I barely ever watch the TV news, but I happened to see this.

Its true there's a certain amount of ethnic clumping in the suburbs - Sunnybank certainly.

At a rough estimate I'd say 70 percent white, 20 percent asian, and the remainder are too few to count

Well this is an interesting breakdown in itself, and I'd say a fairly typical one, maybe even the one I would provide offhand.  I don't know for certain what you intended, but when an Australian describes ethnicity as "Asian" they usually mean East Asian, ie Mongolian/ Japanese/ Chinese/ Thai / Indonesian etc, whereas when a Briton says Asian they usually mean an ethnicity from the Indian subcontinent, even though both are demonstrably part of Asia.

Secondly and much more relevantly, you've pretty much put all of Europe under "white".  But the riot in Sydney was between subsets of this category - self-identified north-western Europeans against Mediterranean Europeans (ie wogs and lebs).  (And here was I thinking wog was an epithet that without potency to anyone under age 30; my mistake.)  When you consider - as the rioters are - that as a separate ethicity, I think you'll find the picture changes.

I guess race is (wince) a social construct, eh?

I'll be watching the crowds like a hawk on Monday

And I shall be watching them like a hawk-catching mongoose!

[ Parent ]

Remember kids! (1.83 / 12) (#79)
by Talez on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 09:38:03 AM EST

For a WASP not to respect another culture it's racist.

For another culture not to respect WASPs, well, that's life. Those WASPs are the majority. They should learn to take the hit because they outnumber those darkies anyway, right?

The protest didn't start out as "bash a leb" day. They started out as a combined effort to take a stand against the ethnic antisocial gangs that have taken out their own personal "jihad" (for lack of a better word) against WASPs and the "Australian" way of life in general. These people consistently push boundaries trying to force people into confrontation. They thrive on it. They have a mini-orgasm every time they show some skip who's the tough guy.

But as with anything it gets out of hand and the line that needs to be tread VERY carefully when dealing with any ethnic antisocial group was trampled over and generally ignored.

But whatever. This will continue to float around for the next 20 years as an example of Australia's "racism". Me? I just want to be able to go down to the beach without some wannabe homie ethnic coming up to our group looking for a fight and antagonising everyone. Along with 90% of the people who joined in the protest.

Si in Googlis non est, ergo non est

So most of the 'protestors' didn't support (2.75 / 4) (#80)
by extra dry on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 09:55:46 AM EST

the attacks on non-Whites at the beach?
Those impostors then, whom they style Mathematicians, I consulted without scruple - St Augustine, Confessions
[ Parent ]
No (2.40 / 5) (#82)
by Talez on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 10:36:04 AM EST

AFAIK the attacks were conducted by a group of about 200 drunken louts who were a breakaway mob from the main protest.

Si in Googlis non est, ergo non est
[ Parent ]
Your sig (none / 0) (#102)
by Mathemagician on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:46:38 PM EST

Isn't the ergo unnecessary? I think that translates as "If it is not in Google, therefore it does not exist"

[ Parent ]
And you've demonstrated that you're a real expert (none / 0) (#111)
by D Jade on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:19:40 PM EST

When it comes to the tensions down on Cronulla beach my friend. Given that you've basically defended the outright racist propoganda that started this whole incident, your opinion doesn't really qualify to much.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
I agree with you (none / 0) (#112)
by driptray on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:35:45 PM EST

But I also think Talez's story about the violence coming only from a breakaway group of 200 to be plausible.

But I think the "protest" itself was based on a racist outlook, so all 5,000 are guilty in one way or another.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

Plausible in theory (none / 0) (#119)
by D Jade on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 10:41:13 PM EST

However, I'd have a hard time believing that 200 people would cause such havoc without the other 4,800 standing around them...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
"unrepresentative minority" (none / 0) (#140)
by usr on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 01:45:22 PM EST

so it's the old game of "just an unrepresentative violent minority" again...

did those 4800 peaceful protesters return the next day, to protest against that minority too? i think not.

[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#142)
by driptray on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 03:32:46 PM EST

What I was trying to say was that the 200 were representative of the other 4,800, in everything but the violence.

I'm damning the 4,800, not excusing them.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

They went to work (none / 0) (#160)
by schwar on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 11:21:58 PM EST

Or more likely Centrelink

[ Parent ]
Doesn't change the fact that racists (2.70 / 10) (#81)
by thankyougustad on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 10:12:24 AM EST

were beating the shit out of scapegoats based on their pervcieved skin color.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Your racist bias (3.00 / 2) (#107)
by driptray on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 06:09:29 PM EST

For a WASP not to respect another culture it's racist. For another culture not to respect WASPs, well, that's life.

I'm not aware of anybody that believes this. It's a straw man.

The protest didn't start out as "bash a leb" day.

That's how it was advertised via SMS. You'd have to assume that the 5,000 people who showed up were responding to the advertisement.

They started out as a combined effort to take a stand against the ethnic antisocial gangs that have taken out their own personal "jihad" (for lack of a better word) against WASPs and the "Australian" way of life in general. These people consistently push boundaries trying to force people into confrontation. They thrive on it. They have a mini-orgasm every time they show some skip who's the tough guy.

I go to the beach a lot. I don't see a great deal of anti-social behaviour, but when I do I don't tend to notice the colour of the skin or the ethnicity of the perpetrators. The fact that you're focusing on only one type of perpetrator indicates your racist bias. I think you overlook it when whites behave in the way you've described.

I just want to be able to go down to the beach without some wannabe homie ethnic coming up to our group looking for a fight and antagonising everyone. Along with 90% of the people who joined in the protest.

Growing up in the Sutherland Shire I had to constantly deal with people being antagonistic and looking for fights. They were all white anglos.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

Bias? (none / 0) (#291)
by debillitatus on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 11:25:51 AM EST

For a WASP not to respect another culture it's racist. For another culture not to respect WASPs, well, that's life.

I'm not aware of anybody that believes this. It's a straw man.

Ok, I have very little sympathy with the parent comment, but you are also full of shit.

If you've never heard that sentiment expressed, well, then, you've sure as hell never met a white liberal in your life.

I will grant you that most of the people who hold that view do not do so self-consciously, but it is ubiquitous.

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

not race, butt religion. (none / 0) (#303)
by user 956 on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 06:04:44 AM EST

your comment missed the point... the riots aren't related to race, so much as they're related to religion (islam), which is applicable to any race.
---

Top Chuck Norris Facts.

(lazy sunday)
[ Parent ]
No, they were about race (none / 0) (#304)
by driptray on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 04:53:42 PM EST

It was "bash a leb and wog day". People were bashed because of their dark skin, not because of their religion (which was unknown to the perpetrators).
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

What precisely is a 'wog'? (2.75 / 4) (#83)
by LilDebbie on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 10:40:38 AM EST

Behind on my racial slang.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

I asked author to define way below (none / 0) (#88)
by creativedissonance on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 01:18:20 PM EST

but the edits didn't make it by vote-time.


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
Urban Dictionary sez... (none / 1) (#90)
by nate s on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 01:27:43 PM EST

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wog

That.

Most common reported seems to be "People from European or Middle Eastern background, usually closer to asia. Such as Italy, Greece, Lebanon and Turkey etc."

[ Parent ]

This is what I said earlier (3.00 / 2) (#110)
by D Jade on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:14:03 PM EST

Leb is short for Lebanese. The more racist variant is Lebo. Wogs are similar to wops. Except that my understanding is that Wops only refer to Italians. Wogs, are anyone hailing from anywhere between Italy and Eastern Europe. It doesn't really apply to the Lebs, but they sometimes try to claim that they are wogs too. But they're not real wogs.

It comes from the 50s when many Italians emmigrated to Australia and worked in the fields. They worked for less and longer hours. So many came to Australia that the Skips (that's the anglos) referred to them as Golliwogs, because they were spreading like a virus.

It was a term of much antagonism, but as time has worn on, the Eastern European immigrants have taken the name with pride.

Even in my lifetime, it's gone from being an offensive term to one of affection. Mainly owing to the fact that Melbourne (can't speak for other cities) owes a lot of its culture to the immigrants (ie: Lygon street and italian restaurants and even AFL).

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Western Oriental Gentleman (3.00 / 3) (#132)
by harrystottle on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 04:51:30 AM EST

derogatory term from British Colonial Times. Could never figure out where they must have been standing when they coined the term...

Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]
Probably in Australia (none / 1) (#151)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 07:51:39 PM EST

Or somewhere else there was a gold rush. The Chinese came to Australia at the beginning of the gold rush and they seemed to do much better than anyone else with a stake. Mostly because they were harder workers and more knowledgable in the science of gold digging/panning...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
slang in Oztraya (none / 1) (#301)
by mozmozmoz on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 11:13:10 PM EST

Australians have more racial slang than I'd ever heard before I came here. This is just freaky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_words#Terms_or_nicknames_for_ethnicities There's a whole language, none of it friendly, and I can't recall the whole list (I made a list once when I'd only been here a few months, and there were 20-odd words in it). chinks - chinese jap, nip - japanese wogs - italians, greeks, or anyone else mediterranean eyeties - italians gooks - vietnamese or other SE Asian lebs - lebanese or arab chogis - asians abo, coon, boong - aboriginal australians As with many white countries, "Australian" often means "white australian" and sometimes (but not often) includes white immigrants from other former british colonies. If you're a non-white it's very common to be asked where you come from... and saying "Cabramatta" gets you interesting looks (it's a Vietnamese-heavy suburb of Sydney, where the last race panic was centered - all those Vietnamese gangs).

There's lots of comedy on TV too. Does that make children funnier?
[ Parent ]

Funny ausie banther, +1 (1.42 / 7) (#85)
by weedaddict on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 12:25:56 PM EST



Reality has a certain cynical bias - Cattle Rustler
WIPO : Human Nature (2.60 / 5) (#87)
by thankyougustad on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 01:02:39 PM EST



No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

Agreed (none / 1) (#137)
by tsunami on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 09:14:14 AM EST

Their music has driven me to violence on multiple occasions.


--------------
I also saw a madman crazily pumping this polygon thing to roughly the same timing as a functional wank. - A Trolled An Anonymised Englishman
[ Parent ]
Parsimmony... (1.00 / 16) (#89)
by AngelKnight on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 01:26:54 PM EST

There is no jail big enough to contain America.  There exist jails big enough to contain one criminal.

what a retard (2.50 / 4) (#101)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:44:21 PM EST

in a story about race riots in australia, we find someone targetting the usa

being obsessed with the usa solves no problems in this world


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yup. (none / 1) (#170)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:45:44 AM EST

I tend to agree with CTS.

TBSDY

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

Two letters published in today's SMH (3.00 / 5) (#105)
by driptray on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:52:54 PM EST

To all the organisers of the rally at Cronulla last Sunday: thanks. No, really. I love what you've done with the place.

Where I used to be able to sit out on my balcony at night in peaceful and serene contemplation, now I cower behind locked and bolted doors. Where I used to be able to pop down to the supermarket for some groceries any time, now I wonder if a dash to the servo on the corner is a good idea - what with thugs setting it on fire and all. Where I used to feel untroubled living in a relatively non-secure apartment block, now I feel a measure of security only when the riot police are brandishing their batons and shields outside my front door.

And it's all thanks to you. Well done, gallant heroes. Not.

Apparently you drunken, bigoted knights in flannelette from Cronulla desire to defend your women, your beach and your Australian way of life. I've got news for you: keep your day jobs. The women do not feel safer. We are scared. We are sickened. We are disgusted.

You call Cronulla your beach - I don't see your name written on it.

And what about my beach? I can't safely look at it, walk on it or swim there now thanks to your thuggery.

And you know what? It was a lot prettier without the riot police guarding it.

I love those guys but they just don't blend in real well with the bikini babes and surfer dudes.

A few disgusting things said, a wolf whistle, an insult - they are not good enough reasons to justify what happened. I go to Cronulla all the time. I've had just as many leers and wolf whistles from Caucasian males as any other race. You know what I and many other women do? We ignore them. Simple. Big mouths are looking for a reaction, so don't give them what they want.

And don't defend our way of life by preaching hatred, violence and racial vilification which beget more hatred and violence. The question is: how much further are you willing to push it? Until our possessions are looted, our homes are burnt to the ground or our bodies are lying in coffins?

The people who began this stupidity are the ones who must end it. You can stop the violence and hate. End it today, now. Please.

-----------------------------

People are saying that the riots at Cronulla demonstrate "the failure of multiculturalism". If they had occurred in somewhere like, say, Auburn or Parramatta, areas with ethnically diverse populations, then these people might have a point. But they did not. The occurred in the Shire, one of the most homogenous areas in Sydney. It is a monoculture, and the locals were reacting as much to a perceived invasion of their territory by the "wogs" as they were to any specific incidents or even trends of violence.

What the riots at Cronulla demonstrate is not the failure of multiculturalism but the dangers of its absence.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating

You've got some wise Australians there. (none / 0) (#117)
by mtrisk on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 10:23:21 PM EST

I only wish the people who wrote to my local newspaper were half as intelligent.

______
"If you don't like our country, why don't you get out?"
"What, and become a victim of your foreign policy?"
[ Parent ]
WIPO: All of the above nt (1.00 / 3) (#106)
by kuroXhin on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:56:36 PM EST


The Economist - The Playboy of the new world order!

One Little Race Riot (1.00 / 3) (#115)
by alphaxer0 on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:08:51 PM EST

and you all get scared. Jesus, you Aussies need to learn some recent history. The Lebanese are nowhere need the level the Croatians were in the 1960s and 70s, when according to ASIO and Federal Police they were conducting a major terrorist attack each week.

Not to mention Australian-Croatians exported their terrorist campaign around the world. The Aussie based Croatian Revolutionary Brotherhood bombed Yugoslav targets in France and Germany, not to mention the the 1963 and 1972 invasions of Yugoslav by armed bands of Croatian Australians, who received backing from the ASIO and Australian Army.

The Croatians were so bad, particularly rioting during soccer matches between Serbian or Yugoslav community teams, they retarded the acceptance of soccer in Australia. They also made Australians leery of accepting Vietnamese refugee, who were labeled Yellow Croatians.

I won't even mention some of the worse offenders in the Balkan wars, were Australian Croatians and Serbians.

Ah, Croats and Serbs are both Yugoslav (none / 1) (#129)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 12:34:16 AM EST

Get with it bro. The Serbs, Bosnians and Croatians are all from the former Yugoslavia - now Serbia Montenegro.

The reason the Croatians were so nuts was because the Serbs were basically exploiting their control of the government to fuck everyone else over. The Bosnians and the Croatians wanted sovereignty but the Serbs denied their democratically voted requests because this mean a massive cut in the GDP for the Serbs.

Given that 20 years after all of the crises in Australia and abroad the Serbs then tried to kill of every Bosnian and Croatian in their path, I think it's kind of understandable.

I don't think that fighting systematic brutality is in the same kettle of fish as a bunch of bogans beating up wogs somehow.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Try telling a Croatian... (none / 1) (#135)
by bml on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 07:33:32 AM EST

he's now from Serbia-Montenegro. He'll show you his appreciation in a very physical way.

The former Yugoslavia broke up into Serbia-Montenegro, Croatia and Bosnia. Slovenia and  Macedonia were a part of it as well. Serbia-Montenegro is just the biggest chunk.

The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]

True... (none / 1) (#145)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:03:51 PM EST

Doesn't change the fact that they're all Yugoslavs which was the point of the story and if you knew this already... Then why make a distinction?

Btw - Someone who is Croatian is not necessarily from Croatia but they are definitely from Yugoslavia. Girlfriend's grandmother is Croatian and has lived her whole life in Belgrade for example.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

You're one of those people (none / 0) (#164)
by bml on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 05:59:01 AM EST

who can't admit they made a mistake, right?

The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]
I suppose I am just like you in that respect, yes. (none / 0) (#234)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 08:55:28 PM EST

If merely pointing out that it's not so simple as drawing borders and pointing the finger over the line.

The biggest mistake I've ever made was discussing this with my girlfriend's mother who fled from Yugo 30 years ago.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Please (1.50 / 2) (#155)
by alphaxer0 on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 08:12:53 PM EST

That partial truth is distorted Croatian propaganda. They also forgot the only reason they were not observed into Italy was Serbian troops, who they welcomed, arrived in time after the Second World War.

Not to mention, Tito was a Croat. The Croatian were also engaged in their versions of Ethnic Cleansing, like Operation Flash, which, in terms of sheer numbers, was the worse ethnic cleansing of the Homeland War.

[ Parent ]

Thankyou (none / 0) (#157)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 08:48:33 PM EST

Further justification as to why Yugoslavia should have been divided by separate states. Especially given that one side did this, then the other did that and this side is worse, no wait, that side is worse.

However, in Yugo's most recent history before it dissolved, the fact is that the Serbs enjoyed a great quality of life and wealth by exploiting the other ethnic groups and abusing its balance of power. Simple fact my friend.

You have no idea how much grief I get for this view given that my family in law is Serbian. However, it pays to know why I have this standpoint and what you are saying it confirms it completely. Yep, the Croatians did some fucked up shit decades before the Serbs did and so that makes it okay. Ah, no it doesn't. I said to my Zeta (Future father/son-in-law) that if anything it makes the actions of the Serbs even more deplorable and that defending any form of genocide (especially after being on the receiving end yourself) is disgusting to say the least.

Naturally he wanted to hit my anglo white ass for such contempt. But after a few shots of Rakkia and some thought he hugged me and said that I was absolutely right.

The Croatians have paid a very high price for the actions of their forebears. And the Serbs should have known better than to pursue the same brutality that they suffered.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

And the real racists are ... (none / 0) (#131)
by vordan on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 04:29:49 AM EST

Well, how far do we have to go to prove a point?
You forget that your own ancestors were sooo bad that they were deported out of their own country.
My opinion is that this bad blood is showing up in these latest riots. Australians (anglo-saxon australians, to be precise) have always been racists, starting with the aborigines.
All they need is a spark of some sort and the genes of their ancestors start showing through.
I've been there and seen this, and I will never go back again. At least, serbians and croats are hospitable, good guys, just don't get them started on politics. That's where things may go bad.
But in Australia, you get all this stiff-lipped, snotty-nosed anglo-saxons against everybody else.

[ Parent ]
Where the fuck did you go? (none / 0) (#150)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 07:49:45 PM EST

For the record, it's important to note that most of the convicts deported to Australia weren't bad at all. Not in the modern criminal sense anyway. They were bad from a classist perspective. The most common crimes for which people were deported were petty theft. The example the history books love to cite is the boy who stole a loaf of bread and then got sent to Van Diemen's land.

And I don't know where you visited in Australia, but I'd wager you witnessed such racism either in densely populated, low socio-economic areas or in rural isolated areas of similar bent. I'd also wager (having lived here my whole life) that much of the antagonism you have seen has been over social issues. But it just so happens that groups of people naturally lean towards their own people.

The US and the UK are no better when looking for examples of racist or socially discriminating societies.

You must have hung out with some real assholes when you came to Australia. Most Anglos I know are anything but stiff-lipped. Their idea of a dinner party is a slab and a barbeque around the pool with their Anglo, Euro, Middle Eastern and Asian (or any other ethnic group) friends.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Another write up at Everything2.com (3.00 / 4) (#116)
by mavetju on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 09:25:03 PM EST

Racial tensions at Cronulla Beach: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1769286

Commonly heard... (1.83 / 6) (#136)
by thefirelane on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 08:04:43 AM EST

First, that the leb guys who beat up the lifesavers and who are smashing shit up are basically criminal gangsters who aren't representative of the Lebanese community.

Personally, there is only so many times I can hear this statement before it becomes tiresome. Every time something happens, and all the people come from group X, that groups says "Well, they aren't representative of our community". It seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous. As in, no one is examining why those people came from that community, and not another. Because the uncomfortable truth is, there is a reason. No, suicide bombers are not 'representative of the whole community'... but you know what, there is a reason they came from that community and not another.

Similarly, these soccer players are not Japanese or Jewish teenagers going around beating people up and generally being rude. There is a reason for that (and no, it isn't simply because those teenagers were not there).

I think it becomes too easy for a group to say 'they are not representative' instead of examining what about that group produced such individuals.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
Yeah group justice! (none / 1) (#141)
by nietsch on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 02:55:25 PM EST

Lets make every etnic group responsible for the actions of their members. Let's put entire etnic groups with a high percentage of criminals in special reeducation camps. There they will taugt new job and being set free by good honest labour.


[ Parent ]
See here. (1.75 / 4) (#167)
by thefirelane on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:13:44 AM EST

Since all the replies make pretty much the same mistake, I've written one reply which can be found here, thanks.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Yes, all of your replies are mistaken (none / 0) (#263)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 12:28:32 AM EST

It's a shame that's not what you meant...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
it is because lebanese people (1.50 / 2) (#143)
by thankyougustad on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:23:30 PM EST

are subhumans. right?

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
See here (1.75 / 4) (#168)
by thefirelane on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:14:10 AM EST

Since all the replies make pretty much the same mistake, I've written one reply which can be found here, thanks.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Culturist, racist, whatever. (none / 1) (#180)
by thankyougustad on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 05:30:26 PM EST

You aren't the first, and you won't be the last. Nice try on dressing a basically xenophobic attitude up. I can see how it makes sense to you, but the problem is that you can't divide the world up into cultures any more than you can divide it up into skin colors.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Culturalism is wrong? (none / 1) (#187)
by thefirelane on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:43:53 PM EST

So you are saying it is fundamentally immoral to judge the strengths and weaknesses of different cultures?

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Where do you go with your judgement? (3.00 / 2) (#190)
by driptray on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:55:18 PM EST

Yes.

Well, maybe. My question is - what do you do with these judgements? Presumably you intend to act on them. But which culture to act on? On which culture does the responsibility lie for the "weaknesses" of one particular culture?
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

The heart of the matter (none / 0) (#197)
by thefirelane on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 06:26:23 AM EST

This really gets to the heart of the matter then, and why we can not agree: I believe in there being objective right and wrong, whereas you do not.

I believe it is absolutely morally incorrect to force a preteen girl to get a clitorectomy against her will, whereas apparently you do not. That's fine, and many people believe this, I just happen not to.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
The heart of the matter (3.00 / 2) (#199)
by driptray on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 07:36:54 AM EST

I believe that the heart of our disagreement is your insistence that it is right and just to lay the blame for a particular cultural "weakness" at the feet of that culture, instead of seeing cultural characteristics as the complex result of the interplay between cultures.

For a comically oversimplified, yet still apt example, I reserve the right to be able to blame western cultural imperialism for whatever "weaknesses" of "non-western" cultures you are able to identify.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

Dodging the question (none / 1) (#200)
by thefirelane on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 07:48:34 AM EST

Is it morally wrong to force preteen girls to undergo genital mutilation?

Are you honestly saying that this cultural aspect is the fault of the west?

Do you honestly not believe such actions can be judged in a moral/ethical sense?

I purposely chose this example, because it should be clear to anyone that such practices are objectivly immoral.

So now I have my foot in the door: it is possible to judge aspects of cultures from an objective standpoint. Given this, is there not a gradient among severity of morality, ie. If genital mutilation is absolutely wrong, are there not cultural aspects that might meerly be, 'mildly unhelpful' to a society. As an example, Irish American immigrants did not value education as highly as Jewish American immigrants. This was a cultural value and was not helpful for their upward mobility in America.

To me it sounds like you are saying all problems of 'non-western' societies stem from 'western imperialism'. Whereas I'm meerly trying to point out that groups of people from all over the world value different things more highly than others. These value will result in different actions of members (such as, as you say, when cultures interact).

To further illustrate my point: Why were Kamakazis a Japanese phenomenon during WWII and not German?

I would really appreciate it though, if you answered my initial question

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
You haven't been objective though (none / 0) (#262)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 12:27:28 AM EST

If you were objective, you would relent on most of what you are saying because you are not making any factual claims. Nor was your original statement based in any sound objective reason.

Gustad is right, and if you were objective in your statements, this argument would not even be happening because you wouldn't have made the racist (culturalist, whatever you want to call it) remarks which you did.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Who am I to judge? (none / 1) (#192)
by thankyougustad on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 09:43:09 PM EST

Is it wrong? I don't know, on absolute terms, I don't think so. I do think however that it isn't any less pigheaded than racism. It is easy for Europeans to look down on Arab culture, and pretty much accepted. Those same people would probably have a different attitude where they born in Egypt, Iran, or Algeria. Its the same attitude that allowed 19th centurey scholars to refer to Africans as savages and justify colonialism.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
The heart of the matter (none / 1) (#196)
by thefirelane on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 06:24:50 AM EST

Is it wrong? I don't know, on absolute terms, I don't think so. I do think however that it isn't any less pigheaded than racism.

This really gets to the heart of the matter then, and why we can not agree: I believe in there beingobjective right and wrong, whereas you do not.
I believe it is absolutely morally incorrect to force a preteen girl to get a clitorectomy against her will, whereas apparently you do not. That's fine, and many people believe this, I just happen not to.
It does become difficult though, to say it is similar to racism, because people can not change their race, whereas they can change their behavior.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
I wasn't clear (none / 1) (#209)
by thankyougustad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 05:09:14 PM EST

I also don't think its right to force a girl to undergo circumcision. I think where we differ is that you are willing to apply a few bad things that come from a culture and write that culture off completely. You are prefectly prepared to look at femal circumcision and suicide bombers and make the judgement that the Arab culture is inherintly wrong. The fact of the matter is that those kids aren't representative of that 'group.' Cockheadedness isn't confined to one ethinicity, there are white black and brown assholes. Any example of why the Arab culture is 'bad' can be found in all other cultures on Earth. But really, you said it yourself
because people can not change their race, whereas they can change their behavior.
That would seem to mean that chalking up any individual's behavoir to his ethnicity will lead you astray.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Again.. re-read (none / 1) (#214)
by thefirelane on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 06:17:21 PM EST

You are prefectly prepared to look at femal circumcision and suicide bombers and make the judgement that the Arab culture is inherintly wrong.

Again, you are reading in, seeing bias that isn't there. I SIMPLY SAID THAT CULTURES HAVE VARIOUS ASPECTS, SOME GOOD, SOME BAD That's all. I said simply that the statment given by the group, casting the teenagers as outsides, was a method to avoid examination of one's own culture.

Get it?

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
That is what you are saying now (none / 1) (#216)
by thankyougustad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 08:05:10 PM EST

Again, you are reading in, seeing bias that isn't there. I SIMPLY SAID THAT CULTURES HAVE VARIOUS ASPECTS, SOME GOOD, SOME BAD That's all. I said simply that the statment given by the group, casting the teenagers as outsides, was a method to avoid examination of one's own culture.
I just responded to what you said in your original post. I don't think anyone is going to argue that cultures have various aspects, some being better than others. If that is what you had said, I doubt you would have caused such a stir.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
You keep telling everyone to re-read (none / 1) (#261)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 12:22:27 AM EST

Yet every time anyone does re-read what you're saying, the same conclusions are still apparent. When you re-state your position, you end up presenting a different and position that contradicts what you are actually saying.

There's no point getting people to re-read your statements when you don't even understand them yourself.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

You have no concept of your argument (none / 0) (#259)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:56:07 PM EST

You're just blindly stabbing in the dark my friend.

Firstly, saying that all members of the Australian Lebanese community are represented by the acts of a few Australians is not an objective statement.

Secondly, it's just plain wrong. The Australian community is represented by the acts of the few because it highlights an issue with the youth of this country (or at least in Sydney) which is not exclusive to Lebanese or Middle Eastern Australians.

Thirdly, genital mutation is not relevant to the argument and to use that as an application of your logic and point out where Gustad's logic fails is only indicative of your lack of comprehension of the issue.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

No, he didn't say that at all (none / 0) (#258)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:50:38 PM EST

He is saying that it is wrong to hold an ethnic group accountable for the strengths and weaknesses of its individual. That's like saying that it's every black man's fault that some black guy sells crack to your mother.

In any case, what you are doing is not judging a culture's strengths and weaknesses. This is not a discussion on events in Lebanon, it's about events in Australia. The only values you can judge are those inherent in Australian culture, and you've already shown you're unqaulified to do so.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Not all black people (none / 0) (#306)
by kosuri on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:48:30 AM EST

Obviously it's not the fault of some black businessman that your mom bought crack from a dealer who happens to be black.

On the flip side, if you take 10 crack dealers at random, odds are tha 100% of them will be black, so it's intellectually dishonest to say that dealing crack has nothing to do with being black. There's obviously something going on there, and if you ever want to solve the public health problem of crack addiction, then it's best not to sweep facts under the rug just because they might hurt someone's feelings.


--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]

So obviously the rest of the world is wrong (1.50 / 2) (#257)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:46:49 PM EST

And you are right.

One thing I've learned as I've aged is that if everyone around you disagrees with what you are saying (especially at a place like K5) it is more than likely that you have either expressed yourself unclearly or misinterpreted what you actually said, or (even more likely) it is because you are wrong.

I think you should just acquiese and accept the facts.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Blinkers and filters (3.00 / 2) (#144)
by driptray on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:28:26 PM EST

Every time something happens, and all the people come from group X...

But all the people don't come from group X. Obnoxious jerks at the beach come from a wide variety of backgrounds.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

That's very true (none / 1) (#171)
by minerboy on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:46:58 AM EST

Every group has its blacksheep - The question is, which group controls them better. From the posts, it seems like there is a difference in that certain groups tend to act on their fuckwitedness in a more violent way. The way to determine if this is true or just biased perception is to look at crime statistics. While these are not perfect, they should be a good starting place.

If it is true that the "Lebs" commit more violent crime, then the poster is correct, their community shares some blame, since it "takes a village" to raise a child, the moral quality of a village should be judged by the maoral quality of their children



[ Parent ]
Yeah but crime stats are subjective... (none / 0) (#256)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:39:34 PM EST

The fact that one group has been charged with certain crimes more often may only show that said group is better at getting caught.

It might also show that one group of has a higher socioeconomic background, so therefore they can afford better legal counsel - Like whites vs blacks in the US, not that I know anything about it, but it could be a factor.

The problem with this issue is that political correctness and sensationalism turns this into an issue of race when it's an issue of society as a whole.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Is that you HHD ? (none / 1) (#277)
by minerboy on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:24:49 PM EST

Same style of argument. Anyway, " The fact that one group has been charged with certain crimes more often may only show that said group is better at getting caught." - simple answer, use reported crimes, not arrest or conviction statistics. Since crimes are typically under reported, your likely to get a best case scenario.



[ Parent ]
Still not accurate (none / 0) (#282)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 07:22:18 PM EST

And still subjective. Mainly because reported crime is even more subjective. It deals with human perception and the simple fact is that the race of a criminal might be misreported. Example, a tanned surfer wearing a hoody in the dark might look like someone of middle eastern appearance (as evidenced by the tanned surfies that got bashed down at Cronulla).

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Take for example, thefirelane (none / 0) (#255)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:36:46 PM EST

He's an obnoxious jerk who didn't even go to the beach! Nor is he Lebanese!!!

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Suicide bombers? (none / 0) (#149)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 07:42:15 PM EST

Yeah actually, you're right. If they were from the US of A they'd just go and join the military and blow shit up with tanks.

By your statement, all suicide bombers are so because of their community, which is regional. But it's also ethnic, they're all Muslims say, so thereby all Muslims are terrorists. They also all have darker skin, so by your logic anyone who isn't white is represented by some idiot who straps a bomb on himself. Now do you see the flaw in your insane logic?

If a white Australian in Coolaroo yells "Fuck off you Abo!" to a Koori, does this represent my outlook or any of the other white Australians across this country? No. Similarly if a dickhead bogan over in Cronulla sends a text advertising "Bash a leb and wog day" does this represent my or Driptray's (or any other Australian Kuron's) belief? By your logic it does...

The fact that GWB is a complete, moronic asshole who believes God has given him a holy quest and who supports terrorism so long as you're using actual bombs and machinery that can be made by the military industrial complex must obviously mean that every USian believes that this is correct. Well the polls don't agree with you there and neither do I.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

You're misrepresenting his point. (none / 0) (#158)
by grendelkhan on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 10:41:45 PM EST

But it's also ethnic, they're all Muslims say, so thereby all Muslims are terrorists.

"Muslim" isn't an ethnicity. There are Muslims of every shade. You may be thinking of "Arab"--of course, there are Arab Christians and Arab Jews, as well as Arab Muslims.

I don't think he was conflating suicide bombings with all nonwhite people, but rather pointing out that you don't hear about Christian or Jewish suicide bombers; it seems to be an exclusively Muslim phenomenon. (I haven't done the legwork on this; if you have some counterexamples, I'd love to see them.)

It does not seem as though all Muslims are suicide bombers, but it does seem as though all suicide bombers are Muslims. I'm not sure what that says, but it certainly says something.
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

Three letters I R A (none / 0) (#159)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 11:19:28 PM EST

However, you didn't hear about them launching suicide bombs. Mainly because they didn't need to. They have better access to funds and technology (what being in the center of the western world and all) so it's not necessary for them to sacrifice their lives in the aid of their campaigns. By contrast, some terrorist cell in the middle of the desert with no infrastructure or supply chain is going to have a lot harder time rigging up a more complex bombing device that they could plant in a populated area.

I don't think he was conflating suicide bombings either. But it's a good example to show how flawed his logic is.

Now, you and I both know that Islamics do not constitute a particular race, but the slur is that middle easterns are Islamic and by his logic therefore all Islamic people are middle eastern are terrorists.

I think he's misrepresenting the real issue behind the tension down on the beach and I'll happily provide more examples to squash his warped logic.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Ignores facts ... (none / 1) (#165)
by thefirelane on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 07:38:08 AM EST

However, you didn't hear about them launching suicide bombs. Mainly because they didn't need to. They have better access to funds and technology (what being in the center of the western world and all) so it's not necessary for them to sacrifice their lives in the aid of their campaigns. By contrast, some terrorist cell in the middle of the desert with no infrastructure or supply chain is going to have a lot harder time rigging up a more complex bombing device that they could plant in a populated area.

This entire paragraph is negated by the fact that the London suicide bombers sacrificed their lives, when they were in the same situation as the IRA, and could have easily simply left their backpacks on the train.

It reinforces my point, which is merely that different cultures lead to different behavior, and to not examine one's own culture by saying 'they do not represent us' is disingenuous.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Cultures are not islands, pt 2 (3.00 / 2) (#183)
by driptray on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 07:13:47 PM EST

The London Suicide Bombers sacrificed their lives because they were too witless to do anything but copy the "method" that has been working so well (ie, getting so much attention).

And that method was determined in response to conditions imposed on it by other cultures.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

Plain old wrong (none / 1) (#188)
by thefirelane on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:49:27 PM EST

I can't believe that you will not see what is a plain fact: They could have left the bags in the trains and walked away.

Saying 'they just didn't think of that' ignores a plain fact: martyrdom and self sacrifice are more highly regarded in the culture from which they came.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Right... (none / 0) (#243)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 10:02:41 PM EST

So it's really possible for an amateur bomb maker to make a bomb that they can ensure is going to go off at the appropriate time. Oh yeah, it's really easy to leave a bag lying around in a country where unattended bags are dealt with by the bomb squad. It's a shame you weren't leading the attack. With your operational genius you would have ensured that their campaign was even more successful and they could have taken many more lives.

Glad you're not a terrorist cell leader otherwise the apocalypse would be upon us.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Oh yeah, good to see you know the facts... (none / 0) (#242)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 09:59:38 PM EST

Given that the IRA enjoyed massive support as far as terror networks go. Let's also ignore the millions, if not billions of dollars that the IRA enjoyed as a result of contributions from supporters, arms and intelligence trade. Let's also ignore the massive political support and standing the IRA has enjoyed for decades. Let's also ignore the fact that the bombs and methods used by the IRA were developed by militarily trained experts and electronics nerds. Let's also ignore the fact that the IRA's military arm was a heavily regimented organisation which was as effective as the military regiment of the crown. Of course, let's just ignore the fact that the IRA still exists today as a legitimate political force and the fact that it still has thousands of members.

You know, you're one hundred per cent right. A handful of Muslims in the suburbs are identical to a heavily regimented, multinational, multi-million dollar organisation with thousands of members.

Sorry, what was that about ignoring the facts?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

That word does not mean what you think it means... (1.50 / 2) (#174)
by FieryTaco on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 11:29:26 AM EST

"Muslim" isn't an ethnicity.
Actually, Muslim is an ethnicity. So is African-American, which is different than being African. Jewish is an ethnicity. Mormon is an ethnicity. Italian is an ethnicity and so is Sicilian.

Ethnicity isn't race, it's culture.

[ Parent ]

And isn't it telling... (3.00 / 2) (#184)
by driptray on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 07:19:51 PM EST

...that the meaning of the word appears to be shifting from culture to race.

It indicates to me that people are reluctant to give credence to culture, and prefer the concept of race.

Bordering on Baldrson territory here.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

culturism! rah! rah! rah! (none / 1) (#191)
by FieryTaco on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 09:01:32 PM EST

Which is pretty curious, because in my world the color of a person's skin or the slant of their eyes doesn't matter.... but they culture sure as hell does. But I am just a bastard anyway. Long live culturism!

[ Parent ]
For real? (none / 1) (#275)
by grendelkhan on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 09:19:17 AM EST

So is African-American...

All right! I'm totally going to sign up to be African-American this week. You can sign up to be Jewish or Mormon, so why not?
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

We are all African Americans (none / 1) (#280)
by thankyougustad on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 07:05:33 PM EST

Thousands of years ago, my people too left Africa.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Logical Fallacy (2.00 / 4) (#166)
by thefirelane on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:12:03 AM EST

Even though you've already lost the argument since you relied on a Logical Fallacy. I will continue so as to clarify my point.

When a human being is growing up, who they become depends on certain things. One could argue that they have an `innate' personality, but one would not be able to argue this constitutes 100 percent of their personality. To some extent, the parents, and therefore the larger culture that they are a part of, influences who they become. This means that the culture has an influence on who they are therefore what decisions they make in any particular circumstance.

My point is then quite simply: To say "these people who do bad things are not representative of my group" is disingenuous, because it ignores the fact that those people came from that culture.

In other words, we see certain behavior coming from one group, whereas it would not be expected from another. There must be something about the culture of one group that lends some members to this behavior. To simply ignore that fact is to ignore reality. Culture, like anything else, can have good and bad elements.

For clarity, some examples:
  • Palestinians consist of Christian and Muslims, yet suicide bombers overwhelmingly come from the Muslim populations, same situations, different culture, different results.
  • Australians are not the first to `deal' with such situations, yet they responded in an extremely xenophobic way. Is there something about Australian culture that fosters (no pun intended) xenophobia in some groups.
  • George Bush is extremely religious... is there something about US culture that lends it to electing highly religious leaders (duh)
  • The London Suicide bombers chose to kill themselves, whereas the IRA bombers typically did not... different cultures, different results.


Do you now see how your arguments are the absurd one? I am merely saying that the statement given by the Lebanese population is more of a shield against self-examination.

You are hearing, and responding to, something completely different, which is why you lost this argument. I did not say "lock them all up". Lets examine your logic:

By your statement, all suicide bombers are so because of their community

Close, to be clear, my statement was that suicide bombers are produced as a result of certain values in a culture.

which is regional

False. Culture is mental. Two groups can live in the same region and the individuals can be from different cultures.

But it's also ethnic

False, again culture is mental. Most `white' Americans would find they are much more similar culturally to Colin Powell than to Eminem.

They also all have darker skin, so by your logic anyone who isn't white is represented by some idiot who straps a bomb on himself

False, by this point you've built your argument on two false statements. Therefore it doesn't stand.

Now do you see the flaw in your insane logic?

Do you?

The fact that GWB is a complete, moronic asshole who believes God has given him a holy quest and who supports terrorism so long as you're using actual bombs and machinery that can be made by the military industrial complex must obviously mean that every USian believes that this is correct.

Again, you've responded to a statement I did not make: I did not say that when individual X comes from society Y, then all people in society Y agree with X's actions and support them, and can also be held accountable.
What I did say was that when individual X comes from society Y, there is a reason X came from Y and not society Z. This reason should be examined in order that more of X are not produced (or conversely, to produce more Xs if the behavior of X is desirable)

I hope this has been clarifying. I thought it was clear in my initial (shorter) post, but unfortunately your leap to the emotional conclusion clouded your understanding of what was actually said.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
You are correct. (none / 0) (#222)
by DavidTC on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:17:17 AM EST

Groups need to step up the the plate and condemn, and eventually 'excommunicate', members who behavior in anti-social ways, or that group is, in fact, slightly at fault.

If not only do they not remove these people, but continue to produce them, something is wrong within the culture of that group, something is encouraging that. Paying lip service to 'No, we're not all like that' simply isn't true.

Note this applies to things that aren't morally wrong, too. If a group keeps producing exceptional artsts, there is probably something within that group that encourages that.

However, you must be careful not to confuse the situtation when comparing groups. Muslims might be more likely to suicide bomb, but the actual problem is the bombing, and in the same situtation other cultures will, in fact, plant bombs and kill civilians, like you pointed out with the IRA and should be obvious from the various white Christian terrorists in the USA a decade ago...they just don't kill themselves.

So condemning Muslims, as a group, for being willing to resort to terrorist tactics is hypocritical in the extreme. Every human does that, every human who lives under oppression that is supported by a population of people, and can't reach the government, eventually becomes willing to attack that population instead in an attempt to have them change their support for the government.

We have never seen that not happen in the history of the world.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

I agree, one nitpick (none / 0) (#223)
by thefirelane on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 01:55:31 PM EST

However, you must be careful not to confuse the situtation when comparing groups. Muslims might be more likely to suicide bomb, but the actual problem is the bombing, and in the same situtation other cultures will, in fact, plant bombs and kill civilians, like you pointed out with the IRA and should be obvious from the various white Christian terrorists in the USA a decade ago...they just don't kill themselves.

My point about the bombing was not to examine its morality, but to show how in similiar situations, two groups will react differently based on the varying cultures. Of course the victims don't care whether the bombers died in the process.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Give the IRA Bombers the socioeconomic standing (none / 0) (#238)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 09:31:19 PM EST

of the fundamentalist Muslims and they would probably also use suicide bombs.

Remove the disincentive that it's against the ten commandments to take one's own life and you would see more suicide bombs on the part of the IRA.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

two groups (none / 0) (#241)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 09:51:49 PM EST

Both used bombs, one strapped them to a car, one strapped them to a person. The only difference is the vehicle the GROUP uses. Just like US people drive on the right side of the road and UK people drive on the left. They're still both driving...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
You can call it so... (none / 1) (#240)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 09:48:36 PM EST

But when you make a simplistic statement on a subjective issue, I don't see how that applies.

My point is then quite simply: To say "these people who do bad things are not representative of my group" is disingenuous, because it ignores the fact that those people came from that culture.

Which I agree with. The problem is that these are not first generation Lebanese. These are Australians and they are a product of Australian culture (which is multicultural). So when members of the Lebanese community say that this is not representative of their community, they are right. This is representative of the whole Australian community.

Similarly, the examples I cited relating to the Koori community, do not represent those subsets either, but the community at large.

In other words, we see certain behavior coming from one group, whereas it would not be expected from another. There must be something about the culture of one group that lends some members to this behavior. To simply ignore that fact is to ignore reality. Culture, like anything else, can have good and bad elements.

True and correct. The reality is that this is a product of many young people, white, black or in between. To blame the Lebanese or the Anglos for what has ocurred is to lose sight of the reality (which you have done). Your statement was that this is typical of the Lebanese community only and that the fact that their community has washed their hands of it is inexcusable.

You're right. But placing that blame solely on the Lebanese community makes the actions of those pointing the finger just as deplorable. Everyone should be standing up and stating the fact that there is clearly something wrong in the Australian community when Australians act this way towards each other (bearing in mind that all participants are Australian).

Australians are not the first to `deal' with such situations, yet they responded in an extremely xenophobic way. Is there something about Australian culture that fosters (no pun intended) xenophobia in some groups.

Go to Cabramatta at 11pm on a Saturday night and tell me that you weren't afraid for your safety surrounded by the kind of people that frequent there (who also happen to be primarily Vietnamese). I think the media's made it into an issue of Xenophobia. Most people there were there for a riot about anything.

The London Suicide bombers chose to kill themselves, whereas the IRA bombers typically did not... different cultures, different results.

The London bombers lived in a country that did not have large support for their cause. Unlike the IRA that had the support of many Irish citizens. The London bombers were not part of a massive national network consisting of thousands of members throughout the community who publicly announce their views and alliances. The London bombers also have no standing within Parliament. More to the point, the London bombers do not have said thousands of members to make contributions to their cause. Put the Christian terrorists in a Muslim equivalent nation (not that one exists) but you would find the roles reversed.

Do you now see how your arguments are the absurd one? I am merely saying that the statement given by the Lebanese population is more of a shield against self-examination.

And I'll repeat, that it's absurd to say that this is representative of the Lebanese community exclusively. Young people of all colors conduct themselves in this manner, pure and simple.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Huh?? (none / 0) (#305)
by kosuri on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:39:31 AM EST

Was any of that post actually in English?


--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]

Sorry, I'm not a racist... (none / 0) (#309)
by D Jade on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 10:03:48 PM EST

Not implying that you are either. But aboriginal is actually an offensive term to the indigenous people of Australia.

To explain the language:

Coolaroo is an isolated town in Australia.

Abo is a derogatory term for Aboriginal. Much like nigger only the Kooris don't use it as a term of affection amongst their own.

Koori refers to the northern inigenous tribes of Australia. It actually means shit in the southern dialects. However, by 1841, the last remaining full-blooded southern indigenous person in this country died. His name was Barak. The English had killed off or raped all of his relatives by then.

Bogan is kind of the equivalent to white or trailer trash in the US. Except that bogans have much more style and are far more culturally advanced than trailer trash. They are kind of like a national icon. Typically found at the local football ground where blundstone shoes, king gee stubbie shorts and a flannel shirt. Of course, they'll have a can or bottle of beer in their stubbie holders (a sleeve that you put your beer in to keep it cold), and they usually sport mullet haircuts, with peroxide blonde tips or something equally garish.

Leb is a shorthand for lebanese. It's not really racist, it's just an abbreviation, like Aussie.

Wog is a term for eastern europeans (greeks, yugos, italians, lebanese and so on).

USian refers to citizens of the USA. I can't call them Americans because I believe this to be insulting towards the rest of the citizens of America; like Canadians and all of those people in South America who are also Americans.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

How do you feel about the idea (2.00 / 2) (#175)
by daani on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 01:39:58 PM EST

that almost all serial killers are white? What does that say about the whites and their so-called culture?


[ Parent ]
not true (none / 1) (#176)
by minerboy on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 02:21:44 PM EST

It turns out that whites and blacks are equally represented. About 15 % of serial killers are black, equal with there percentage in the population. It just seems like less because they are so over represented in other crimes. The over represented group seems to be gays - a wopping 43 % of serial killers. - but their the weird gays, not the cool gays



[ Parent ]
I would also add.... (none / 0) (#177)
by thefirelane on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 02:27:17 PM EST

What does that say about the whites and their so-called culture

Beside the point that your false statement has already been addressed. I would like to point out that you are also mis-interpreting what I said to be race. I specifically said culture, which crosses racial lines. Furthermore, within racial groups there are many sub-cultures which are not captured by looking at the world through simple 'black/white' polarized lenses.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Well, Mr clever, (2.00 / 2) (#194)
by daani on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 11:43:09 PM EST

My point was how do you feel about the "idea". And the answer is you feel exactly the same way as the people who you criticised. You are very, very, quick to get race/culture/whatever off the table because you *know* not all white people are serial killers. Maybe those who you are accusing of making the knee-jerk "not-representative" statements feel the same way.

Whether or not I was right about the serial killers doesn't matter. It in fact makes more sense to me that I was wrong, doesn't it?

Besides, there is just as much evidence to suggest that all catholics are paedophiles than there is to suggest lebs are yobbos. How about we worry about their "culture" first.

BTW I don't think you're a racist. You're statement was more disingenous than malicious.

[ Parent ]

Seriously, read slower... (none / 0) (#195)
by thefirelane on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 06:18:46 AM EST

My point was how do you feel about the "idea". And the answer is you feel exactly the same way as the people who you criticised. You are very, very, quick to get race/culture/whatever off the table because you *know* not all white people are serial killers.

Honestly. Look very carefully at exactly what I wrote, and do not insert something you think I wrote. Basically, we've been talking past eachother (or more clearly, you've been replying to things you think I've said:

Me: Various cultures instill different values in their members. These different values can cause different people to act in different ways and make different decisions given similiar circumstances. Sometimes these actions and decisions are undesirable.
You: Are you saying all Lebanese people are terrorists? What about the fact that the vast majority of serial killers are white
Me: Firstly, that isn't even true. Secondly, "white" isn't a culture (50% of all Hispanics self-identify as white FYI)
You: See you know not all whites are serial killers so you are trying to change the subject.

Or to put it more succinctly:
Me: Group B is often a subset of group A, it should be studied why this is the case.
You: But you are saying all of A is equal to group B!

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Cultures are not islands, pt 3 (none / 1) (#198)
by driptray on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 07:21:24 AM EST

Me: Group B is often a subset of group A, it should be studied why this is the case.

And if the answer is because of the racism of Group C in its dealings with Group A?
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

You keep missing my point (none / 0) (#201)
by thefirelane on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 07:54:24 AM EST

Honestly, my point is so numbingly simple. I'm holding all external events constant.

I'm meerly stating that different cultures will react different ways when presented with the same stimulus

Do you honestly believe culture has no influence on how people behave?

Going back to the point of the article: Of course the teenagers acted the way they did because of external racism. That much is obvious. My point was, however, that the greater group can not simply dismiss their actions. Would teenagers from every other culture attack the life guards? I do think there are cultures out there that are less defiant and individualistic, and the teenagers would simply brood and skulk away.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
I understand your point. Do you understand mine? (none / 0) (#202)
by driptray on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 08:24:59 AM EST

I'm meerly stating that different cultures will react different ways when presented with the same stimulus

Different cultures never experience exactly the same set of stimuli, so no such judgement can be made.

And on the issue about the attack on the lifesavers - I'm not sure that Lebanese are more likely than any other group to attack lifesavers. There's a just a bigger deal made out of it when it happens.

I really have no faith in the supposedly empirical basis for these sorts of comparisons. People count what they see, yet the blinkers they wear make their count totally inaccurate.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

At this point, the debate is almost over. (1.00 / 3) (#207)
by thefirelane on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 10:33:36 AM EST

There isn't really any more that can be said. I keep asking straightforward questions that do not get answered. Please answer the following questions, in order that we can continue:

1) Do you believe female genital mutilation is morally wrong when done against the will of the participant.
2) What do you believe was the reason Kamakazis were purely a Japanese phenominon during WWII?
3) Why do you believe the London suicide bombers chose to kill themselves instead of simply leaving the bags on the train?

All of the situations I mentioned above stem in my opinion from culture, and the values it instills in the individual.

Furthermore:
Different cultures never experience exactly the same set of stimuli, so no such judgement can be made.

False on two accounts. Firstly the same argument can be applied to any science, or especially social science. Are those fields suspect in your mind also? Secondly, there are often times many cultures experiencing such similiar circumstances that it makes comparison possible. For instance, Muslim and Christian Palestinians.

Given the examples listed above, and if you do not answer them in a straightforward manner, I can take it you concede my original, very simple, points:

1) Culture is an influence on the the development and beliefs on and individual, and therefore effects what actions and decisions they make.
2) Cultures can have positive and negative aspects, and these should be explored.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Actually those weren't your original points (none / 1) (#211)
by thankyougustad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 05:28:48 PM EST

Given the examples listed above, and if you do not answer them in a straightforward manner, I can take it you concede my original, very simple, points:

1) Culture is an influence on the the development and beliefs on and individual, and therefore effects what actions and decisions they make.

2) Cultures can have positive and negative aspects, and these should be explored.
Your original point was that a few rowdy teenagers are representative of an entire diaspora.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
100% wrong, please re-read original post (none / 0) (#212)
by thefirelane on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 06:13:32 PM EST

Your original point was that a few rowdy teenagers are representative of an entire diaspora.

From the original thread, which I keep insisting no one is reading, and now you've proven it:

No, suicide bombers are not 'representative of the whole community'... but you know what, there is a reason they came from that community and not another.

I DID NOT say the individuals "represented that entire community". I DID say that the statement given is often used as a method to avoid examining one's own culture. Do you concede my point?

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
You should reread it yourself (none / 0) (#215)
by thankyougustad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 08:02:41 PM EST

As in, no one is examining why those people came from that community, and not another. Because the uncomfortable truth is, there is a reason. No, suicide bombers are not 'representative of the whole community'... but you know what, there is a reason they came from that community and not another.

Similarly, these soccer players are not Japanese or Jewish teenagers going around beating people up and generally being rude. There is a reason for that (and no, it isn't simply because those teenagers were not there).
You say things like 'there is a reason they came from that community and not another,' and 'These soccor players are not Japanese or Jewish. . .' Those are strong statements that lead us to assume that you are specifically targeting a certain comunity, and that, well, 'there is a reason they came from that community and not another,' and that reason is that they're Arab. If you mispoke, you can retract that statement now. I'm not alone in having interpreted your statement in this way, don't try accusing me of not having read it in order to get yourself off the hook.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Wrong again, this is getting tiresome (none / 1) (#224)
by thefirelane on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 02:24:01 PM EST

and that reason is that they're Arab.

No where did I say that, or even imply that. I simply said that this statement is used as a method of avoiding self examination. My point, which was pretty clear is that if we see certain behaviors originating from a certain culture, it is useful to examine if they are any underlying cultural beliefs that might cause some individuals to act this way.

don't try accusing me of not having read it

Original post: No, suicide bombers are not 'representative of the whole community'

Your followup: Your original point was that a few rowdy teenagers are representative of an entire diaspora.

Considering you failed to answer my two simple questions I outlined, then responded with a direct contradiction of my original text, I can safely state that you in fact did not read it. I can also safely say, as you admit that you assumed I wrote something that was not there.

Considering those facts, it is safe to say you are the one in the wrong. You are arguing against points I did not make, but you imagined. This stems most likely from your belief that anyone who tries to examine any negative aspect of any 'non-white' culture is a racist.
Even if, like I was, they simply point out that all cultures have positive and negative aspects whose resultant behavior should be understood.

As for 'a lot of people being confused', read some of the other posts. They are simply people who misread it because bringing the same bias that you share:
so by your logic anyone who isn't white is represented by some idiot who straps a bomb on himself.
--Pure Genius---

It all comes down to this: you finally understand what I wrote after I explained it further, and now want to claim that those were `not my original points', simply because your assumptions make you think other points are there.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Alright, then lets try this (none / 1) (#225)
by thankyougustad on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 02:28:14 PM EST

Assuming you've somehow convinced me of what you are arguing, please explain these apparently self evident remarks that I did not understandy from your original post:
As in, no one is examining why those people came from that community, and not another. . .but you know what, there is a reason they came from that community and not another.
Why did those people come from that community and not another? What is the reason they came from that community and not another?

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
That's the point (none / 1) (#226)
by thefirelane on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 02:54:20 PM EST

Why did those people come from that community and not another? What is the reason they came from that community and not another?

That's my point exactly. No one is asking those questions, especially not the community itself. This is because the statment given (which is given by every community when some member does something undesirable) is meant to distance themselves from that individual. This is a form of protection from self examination which I don't think should be afforded.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
The reason no one asks those questions (none / 1) (#227)
by thankyougustad on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 03:34:49 PM EST

is because they show a remarkable lack of sophistication. They are inherintly racist. The implied meaning of those kinds of questions is that there is some fundamental quality that those cultures have which leads to bad behavoir among all members of the community. Most people recognize that teenagers are dumbasses no matter what their ethnicity. The self examination you are clamoring for is the examination of human nature, not of a particular culture.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Examining Cultures (none / 0) (#229)
by thefirelane on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 03:57:15 PM EST

You really should just read this book. It examines many of the cultures that make up the US, and their influences. It does so in a manner which does not show a 'lact of sophistication' or 'racism'. Ethnic America

Most people recognize that teenagers are dumbasses no matter what their ethnicity. The self examination you are clamoring for is the examination of human nature, not of a particular culture.

To further wrap things up, my point wasn't so much about the teenagers in particular, as the statement which is always given by a group to distance members from it. Again, I never said a culture's fundamental quality leads to bad behavior among all members... you are making this up. I did say that cultures have qualities which can cause some members to exibit behaviors which might not stem from other cultures.

I'm not going to argue that teenagers universally are not dumbasses, this is human nature. My point was simply that there exists cultures were the teenagers would not attack the lifeguards, even when presented with that racism.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
thanks for the book recomendation n/t (none / 0) (#230)
by thankyougustad on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 04:33:35 PM EST



No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
So you read a book on American ethnic groups (none / 0) (#254)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:33:51 PM EST

And that's why you're now an expert on racial tension?

This explains why you have made no sense throughout your whole argument. Next time, why not try and grasp the concepts you're spouting so that you have some inkling of why they're wrong before you make yourself look like an idiot?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Your making yourself look dumb (none / 1) (#269)
by thefirelane on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:55:03 AM EST

It is a book about how different cultures react to similar, and in some cases identical, situations. It shows how these factors can be examined, and what net effects they have both on the culture itself and society.

It allows one to understand that cultures can be examined, instead of simply categorizing any such attempt as 'racist' which you apparently do

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Riiiight... (none / 0) (#289)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 09:36:22 PM EST

You keep telling yourself that buddy. The fact that you're an idiot doesn't really qualify you to make such a judgement. Besides, you're so opposed to judging people and you're against (perceived) hypocrisy. So maybe you should cut out the hypocritical behaviour and lead by example.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
But you did ask the question (none / 0) (#253)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:31:28 PM EST

and you tried to pose an answer.

Now you're backpeddling and trying to deny the opinions you have stated. Unfortunately though, they're clearly there for all and sundry to see.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Implication through absence (none / 0) (#252)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:28:03 PM EST

of statements to the contrary. Especially given the fact that you clearly pointed out that these soccer players were not Jewish, or Japanese.

You're right, it is tiresome. I don't know how you have all of this energy to keep contradicting yourself over and over again.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

The debate over your idiocy is a non-event. (none / 0) (#251)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:23:47 PM EST

1) Do you believe female genital mutilation is morally wrong when done against the will of the participant.

No. I believe that any action against a person without their legal consent is wrong.

2) What do you believe was the reason Kamakazis were purely a Japanese phenominon during WWII?

Because only the Japanese speak Japanese, so only they would have referred to the tokubetsu kōgeki tai by that name.

The tokubetsu kōgeki tai were a Japanese initiative to combat their enemies more effectively. A heavily regimented military with loyal members is able to coerce its forces into committing "great" acts. When faced with the prospect of entering dogfights with little assurance of any real strategic gains but almost certain loss of life or facing the prospect of divebombing a target with certain loss of life and a certain strategic gain (provided they were on target), it was a decision to advance the greater good of their war efforts.

You also conveniently ignore the fact that the tokubetsu kōgeki tai (the real term for Kamikaze if you didn't know) was an act of desperation on the part of decimated Japanese forces who were facing strong allied forces fresh with experienced reinforcements arriving in the Pacific from Europe.

You're also incorrect in stating that the concept behind the tokubetsu kōgeki tai was exclusive to the Japanese. The Germans were also developing a similar scheme with their Selbstopfer. The intention was to dive bomb targets and bail out at the last minute (which was largely impossible) which would have ensured certain capture at the hands of enemy forces.

3) Why do you believe the London suicide bombers chose to kill themselves instead of simply leaving the bags on the train?

I'll cut and paste my text from another comment I made in response to your misguided and uninformed statements on the IRA.

Given that the IRA enjoyed massive support as far as terror networks go. Let's also ignore the millions, if not billions of dollars that the IRA enjoyed as a result of contributions from supporters, arms and intelligence trade. Let's also ignore the massive political support and standing the IRA has enjoyed for decades. Let's also ignore the fact that the bombs and methods used by the IRA were developed by militarily trained experts and electronics nerds. Let's also ignore the fact that the IRA's military arm was a heavily regimented organisation which was as effective as the military regiment of the crown. Of course, let's just ignore the fact that the IRA still exists today as a legitimate political force and the fact that it still has thousands of members.

You know, you're one hundred per cent right. A handful of Muslims in the suburbs are identical to a heavily regimented, multinational, multi-million dollar organisation with thousands of members.

Sorry, what was that about ignoring the facts?

Yep, this debate's almost over. You've done very well to demonstrate your complete lack of understandings of the issues and points you are raising and trying to defend. BRAVO!

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

You lose (none / 0) (#274)
by thefirelane on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 08:16:36 AM EST

1) You are obviously a racist because you are judging other cultures based on your Western cultural ideal of individuality

2) You failed to answer the question: were there Japanese cultural elements that made self-sacrifice possible in a way that it was not for other armies. You fully admit the Germans at least indended to allow the pilot a chance. This comes back to cultural ideals of individualism versus sacrifice for society

3) I never mentioned the IRA in that question. I simply asked why the London suicide bombers didn't simply leave their bags on the train. The answer comes back to culture again. Is self-sacrifice against an enemy more highly valued?

Basically you've shown yourself to be a hypocrate: "Judging other cultures is wrong, except when I say it isn't" and have repeatedly dodged the simple questions I've posed.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
So my salient points versus your idiocy (none / 0) (#283)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 07:43:08 PM EST

Mean that I lose.

Your first question was:

1) Do you believe female genital mutilation is morally wrong when done against the will of the participant.

You have attacked everyone here with your example of genital mutilation and told us that we all agree with it, which we don't. That's not racist. I made no judgement on the cultures that practice, only on the practice itself, which answers your question. If you were to ask me whether I believe that the people who carry out such acts should be punished or stopped, I will tell you that it's not my place to decide because I am not a citizen of their countries.

Onto your second question:

2) What do you believe was the reason Kamakazis were purely a Japanese phenominon during WWII?

I like how you have conveniently rephrased the question to give it a totally different meaning because everything I've said was one hundred per cent on par. Now you are saying that you asked were there Japanese cultural elements that made self-sacrifice possible in a way that it was not for other armies.

Firstly, the phenomenum of dive-bombing with planes was not a Japanese only phenomenum, pure and simple. Secondly, if you read up about the Selbstopfer you would know that the planes they were using were pretty much impossible to bail out of due to the small size of the cockpit. In fact, the word Selbstopfer translates directly to English as "Self victim", as in suicide.

In short, if you knew your history better, you would know that the tokubetsu kōgeki tai was not a Japanese cultural phenomenum and would see why it's such an idiotic example to prove your case (because it proves the opposite).

And the last question:

3) Why do you believe the London suicide bombers chose to kill themselves instead of simply leaving the bags on the train?

You're right, you didn't mention the IRA. But you conjured up this "tough" question after I did. The best way to answer the question is to compare the suicide bombers and their organisations to other organisations in the same region who have left bombs sitting there.

All of this aside, given the amount of surveillance and the security measures that London has taken in the last few years, leaving a bag on the sidewalk or in a bus or anywhere is sure way to get the bomb squad called in.

I don't see how answering your questions constitutes judging other cultures, nor does it make me a hypocrite. Placing a judgement would mean that I would lay blame, or make a statement about what the people I'm judging deserve or receive for the actions I've judged. Unfortunately for you, I have made no such judgement and the fact that you are calling me a hypocrite just demonstrates how little you understand the issues you're talking about.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Lets focus on this point: (none / 0) (#290)
by thefirelane on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:59:26 AM EST

No. I believe that any action against a person without their legal consent is wrong

So, you are saying that the actions are wrong. But, cultures which do not share this belief (that individuality trump societies wishes for their person) are not incorrect in believing so?

You state later:
I made no judgment on the cultures that practice, only on the practice itself, which answers your question. If you were to ask me whether I believe that the people who carry out such acts should be punished or stopped, I will tell you that it's not my place to decide because I am not a citizen of their countries.

So the practice is wrong, but believing it is right is not?

In other words, in your idea of multiculturalism, everyone is allowed to believe what they want, but only behave by your set of values? This is an honest question. Remember, we are talking about morality here, and not legality. So you can't simply hide behind it and say, I'm not a citizen of country X, so I have no say. Morality does not change at a man-made border. If you believe so, then fine, we can't really have a discussion.

However, the first statment being true, how can you say that you are not judging other cultures when you are prescribing what actions are right and wrong for them to take?

Your final comment shows some confusion. I'm purely talking about morality, which is different than legality, or punishing people.

I'm simply asking: is it possible to judge on a moral sense certain cultural beliefs.


As for the other things, considering you are comparing a commonly used Japanese technique to a hypothetical German research project, shows you have no ability to differentiate between things, and would almost make me think you were a troll, if you weren't so persistent.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Good to see you have no powers of comprehension (none / 0) (#292)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:32:35 PM EST

So, you are saying that the actions are wrong. But, cultures which do not share this belief (that individuality trump societies wishes for their person) are not incorrect in believing so?

No, I am saying that I believe that any action taken against someone without their consent is wrong and if such an action ocurred in my society (be it mutilation or getting beaten up or any other illegal action) the victim would have a means to legal recourse.

My beliefs cannot affect the outcome of a situation that's happened in a different country, on another continent in a system which is alien to me. My personal belief on such an action is irrelevant, much like the argument you're trying to pose here.

So the practice is wrong, but believing it is right is not?

No, I believe that the practise is wrong, personally. Having a belief is not a wrong and the only person trying to make such a stupid claim is you.

In other words, in your idea of multiculturalism, everyone is allowed to believe what they want, but only behave by your set of values?

No, once again you demonstrate how little you actually know about what you're talking about. In a multicultural society, everyone is allowed to believe anything that they want provided that their resultant actions do not encroach on the personal freedoms and rights of other individuals which are provided to all citizens by law.

This is an honest question.

No, you've made it into a leading question.

Remember, we are talking about morality here, and not legality. So you can't simply hide behind it and say, I'm not a citizen of country X, so I have no say. Morality does not change at a man-made border.

You are talking about my personal beliefs here (call them morals). You're right that morality does not change at a man-made border; it changes from person to person. Therefore, it is not my place to judge (as you have) other cultures for their practices. Sure, I can have an opinion (call that a belief) as to whether it's right or wrong. But unlike you, I don't deal in absolutes and I don't therefore judge someone because they do something I believe is wrong.

If someone practised genital mutialation in this country against the person's will then that is a crime. It's still not my place to judge the defendant though. That is why we have a system of law which is why an issue of morality becomes a legal one.

If you believe so, then fine, we can't really have a discussion.

If you believe that any argument you're making here is intelligent or cognisant of the issues then we really can't have a discussion. Firstly, everything you're asking me to explain is irrelevant to the argument which is that "your belief that the acts of a few Lebanese Australian youths is a wholesale reflection on the Lebanese Australian community and that other ethnic groups are not reflected in this behaviour is racist".

What you're trying to do here is find your own point of view in my arguments and you're basically trolling.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

I think its safe to assume (none / 0) (#293)
by thankyougustad on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 09:05:05 PM EST

that you are arguing with someone who will never admit they were wrong, or that they even mispoke. To admit that would of course be the harder, but more respectable thing to do. A waste of time to continue the discussion.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Yeah I figured... (none / 0) (#294)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 10:58:47 PM EST

That was my last comment on the matter.

The funny thing is that it would actually be a great troll... But alas, he's not actually trolling!

I've been thinking of posting an IHBT but then I realised he has no concept of how inconsistent his argument is.

ROFLCOPTER!

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

You consistently miss the point (none / 1) (#295)
by thefirelane on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 08:01:01 AM EST

The point I've been trying to make throughout the whole thread is that morality can be judged on an objective scale through the use of reason.

You keep hiding behind manmade constructs such as laws and borders. I consistently point out that I am not discussing whether an action is legal, or should be punished.

I am trying to point out to you, that in an abstract sense, morality exists much like math: regardless of whether people entirely understand it, or whether the law follows it.

In other words, much as female genital mutilation is wrong, writing 1+1=3 is incorrect. Likewise however, believing female genital mutilation is acceptable is an incorrect belief, regardless of where someone lives or what their local laws say, much in the same way that believing 1+1=3 is incorrect.

This is why we disagree, because I say female genital mutilation is wrong in the abstract sense, whereas to you it is only wrong if carried out.

Since you do not believe beliefs can be judged (remember, judging is not punishing) in an abstract sense, then you have no ability to examine other culture's beliefs, since everything is relative. People who believe woman have no rights are just as morally correct as people who believe they do have rights.

This is the fundamental reason this debate has gone no where.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
You continually sidestep the facts (none / 1) (#296)
by D Jade on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 01:17:57 AM EST

The point I've been trying to make throughout the whole thread is that morality can be judged on an objective scale through the use of reason.

No, the point you've tried to make is that the behaviour of a few individuals is representative of their ethnic group within a community. Upon being confronted with solid arguments discussing why you are wrong, you chose to claim that it was morality you were discussing - which you clearly don't understand if you think that morals and laws have no overlap.

You keep hiding behind manmade constructs such as laws and borders. I consistently point out that I am not discussing whether an action is legal, or should be punished.

Well, I'm a human bro. The language you are using, is manmade. The morals you are discussing are manmade. We live in a manmade society, so unless you're some kind of Jesus nut, you'd better start dealing with the manmade construct in which you exist.

I'm not discussing whether punishment is required for your irrelevant example. You asked me a question about whether I think something is right and I told you that I do not. Then you accused me of judging other cultures, using my answer as your basis. I simply pointed out that having an opinion on certain actions doesn't constitute a judgement.

I am trying to point out to you, that in an abstract sense, morality exists much like math: regardless of whether people entirely understand it, or whether the law follows it.

You're not being abstract, you're being inconsistent, there's a difference.

Morality only exists to those who understand it. It is a subjective force, unlike maths which has laws and rules which can always be proven. The very fact that you think it's moral to judge an entire group of people based on the actions of the few show just how subjective they are. Most moderate and sane people disagree with the moral judgement you have made but you are still entitled to believe you are right. Morality cannot be proven, mathematics can.

In other words, much as female genital mutilation is wrong, writing 1+1=3 is incorrect. Likewise however, believing female genital mutilation is acceptable is an incorrect belief, regardless of where someone lives or what their local laws say, much in the same way that believing 1+1=3 is incorrect.

In other words, you're wrong. Such mutilation is wrong in your's and my opinion. Just as homosexuality was an offense that would see you burned at the stake 800 years ago. However, moderate society accepts that people have the right to be homosexual if they want to. In fact, the moral values in place today say that even if you think homosexuality is wrong, you cannot kill someone for being that way.

What you fail to see is that much of the world thinks that the way of Western society is wrong and immoral, much like you think of genital mutilation. So that basically trumps your argument.

This is why we disagree, because I say female genital mutilation is wrong in the abstract sense, whereas to you it is only wrong if carried out.

No you don't. You say that it is morally wrong, regardless of the environment which it is carried out in. I say that any action taken against the individual's will is wrong because of the concept of individual freedom upon which our society is based on. Unlike you though, I do not make judgements of things which I do not understand and I do not claim any authority that my position on the matter is correct, whereas you do.

The reason we disagree is because you are unable to accept even a single concept that does not adhere one hundred per cent to your view of how things could be. Some people call this narrow-minded, I call it thoughtlessness. If you actually had taken the time to think about the philosophy behind the concepts being discussed here, you would see that, fundamentally, we agree. However you are trying to simplfy an issue into right and wrong. But you miss the fact that this is not how the world works. If it was, Bush would not be president, the third world (and 20 per cent of America) would not be starving. We would not be having this conversation because this absolute right and wrong whose existence you are trying to convince me of would have spelled out the correct answer.

Unfortunately for your argument, no such texts exist.

Since you do not believe beliefs can be judged (remember, judging is not punishing) in an abstract sense, then you have no ability to examine other culture's beliefs, since everything is relative.

No, sorry, you are just plain wrong. If I am to judge another culture based on my own beliefs then I have no hope of understanding that culture. Making a judgement on any subject before you've even tried to understand it will only bias your learning and, ultimately, your understanding.

People who believe woman have no rights are just as morally correct as people who believe they do have rights.

Which is the point I have been making this whole time and is the reason that it is not my place to judge. This is a perfect example of the inconsistency and the complete lack of understanding that you have shown throughout this conversation. This last statement is the exact opposite of everything you've said thus far.

You can repeat the phrase "well you don't understand what I am saying" as many times as you like and you will still be wrong. It is you who doesn't understand. I'm guessing you're young so I can understand why you're still harping on about it. I know when I was younger I believed first and foremost that I was right and that I knew best. Now I know that I am hardly ever right and that I should take the time to listen to those around me and understand what they are saying before I judge them. One day you will learn to reserve judgement until such time that it is needed. Until then, you will always be wrong on this issue.

This is the fundamental reason this debate has gone no where.

No the reason the debate has gone nowhere is because you clearly have no skills in debating. You have not been able to rebut one argument anyone has made, let alone even address them. Your only response to the points presented to you by myself and others is to say that we don't understand what you are saying. This is a non-debate because you haven't addressed the arguments other people are making. That is all I have done and any adjudicator would announce me and Gustad the clear winners over you on this one.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Well why not set up an experiment (none / 0) (#250)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 10:59:17 PM EST

And get another group of youths with the same socioeconomic background but of different "cultures", as you call them, and see what happens. In Australia, it's more than likely that the exact same scenario would have arisen.

The reality is that you are using the word culture in place of the word race and you fail to understand that the rest of us are able to make the distinction and grasp the true meaning of what you are saying.

Australia is multicultural. Now you can debate issues of racism all you like. But the simple fact is that all of these kids and idtiots were schooled in the same system (with each other, no less). They are are members of the same communities and they are members of the same culture. That's Australian culture. Regardless of their heritage, they are all part of the same culture. That's the definition of a multicultural society - one that consists of a number of ethnic groups and therefore draws its influence from a range of cultural backgrounds. Yes, there are tensions between various races, that's always going to be apparent in any society (like say, the US of America for example).

What you're missing though is that this whole incident is more indicative of the culture as a whole than it is of any subset and the issues surrounding it are not exclusive to any one "culture".

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Cultures are not islands, part 17 (3.00 / 2) (#260)
by driptray on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:56:42 PM EST

I think it's a bit more complex than simply saying that everybody in Australia belongs to "Australian culture".

There ARE different cultures within the broader Australian culture. For example, I'm sure there is a distinct "Lebanese culture", and within that there are probably distinct "Lebanese muslim" and "Lebanese christian" cultures. Then there's a hazy sort of "wog culture" and an even hazier "immigrant culture", and of course the over-arching "Australian culture".

A person can belong to all of them. Simultaneously.

Not only that, each of those cultures is forged out of its relationships with all the others. The responsibility for the "nature" of each of those cultures is therefore, at least partly, the responsibility of all of them.

So people typically have multiple, overlapping, and even contradictory cultural identities. Which of these do we "self-examine" as thefirelane puts it? The reason why people are quick to tag him as racist is because of the way he has zeroed in on only one of these identities. He's right to say that Lebanese muslims should indulge in a bit of self-examination, but he's wrong to suggest (as he is doing, despite his denials) that the other cultures within Australia - the "non-Lebanese-muslims" - don't have a similar responsibility. He likes to hide behind his logically ideal world where "all other things can be held equal", and is unable to see that such mathematical precision is an impossible dream in the face of the fluid, contradictory, and hideously complex reality of cultural identity.

Thefirelane has a theoretical point. In practice he appears to be applying it selectively and in a way that parallels the typical racist bias in Australia. And that's the problem with his point - it's impossible to apply in a fair and reasonable way and is useful only as a method for justifying racist bigotry.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

I know it's complex... (none / 0) (#264)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 12:53:35 AM EST

I think it's a bit more complex than simply saying that everybody in Australia belongs to "Australian culture".

Of course it's more complex than that. In short, the statement I make is to dismiss the notion that the Lebanese are purely at fault. That this is an issue of Australian culture at large. Every person in Australia is a product of Australian culture. We're fairly lucky to live in a multiculture where the values and beliefs of individuals differ greatly in a lot of respects.

There ARE different cultures within the broader Australian culture. For example, I'm sure there is a distinct "Lebanese culture", and within that there are probably distinct "Lebanese muslim" and "Lebanese christian" cultures. Then there's a hazy sort of "wog culture" and an even hazier "immigrant culture", and of course the over-arching "Australian culture".

Yes, there are many different cultures within the Australian community. Thefirelane's point is that one particular group is to blame and that things would have panned out differently, given a different ethnic group. I disagree with this because this kind of thing is happening frequently amongst the youth in Australia. It IS a product of the larger social issues faced by ALL Australian sub-cultures.

Not only that, each of those cultures is forged out of its relationships with all the others. The responsibility for the "nature" of each of those cultures is therefore, at least partly, the responsibility of all of them.

Of course they have. This is why the concept of mateship (the real concept, not Howard's) is one common thread amongst Australian communities. Whether the anglo Aussie battler or the European migrant, every community has evolved in such a way as to support each other. The way my rural relatives conduct themselves within their community is almost identical in its ideal as those of my girlfriend's (I'm anglo, she's Eastern Euro). Our customs differ, this is true. But everything else is the same.

So people typically have multiple, overlapping, and even contradictory cultural identities. Which of these do we "self-examine" as thefirelane puts it?

Thus coming to my point on the matter which is that we can't. The issues we're talking about need to be examined from a wider perspective. The social context of the issues does not relate solely to one group and I suspect that a lot of the issues arise out of our common culture more than the divisions in our heritage and their beliefs.

The reason why people are quick to tag him as racist is because of the way he has zeroed in on only one of these identities. He's right to say that Lebanese muslims should indulge in a bit of self-examination, but he's wrong to suggest (as he is doing, despite his denials) that the other cultures within Australia - the "non-Lebanese-muslims" - don't have a similar responsibility.

Which is why his position is one of racism, pure and simple. You can call it culturalist but that's just another word for it.

Thefirelane has a theoretical point. In practice he appears to be applying it selectively and in a way that parallels the typical racist bias in Australia. And that's the problem with his point - it's impossible to apply in a fair and reasonable way and is useful only as a method for justifying racist bigotry.

Which is why it's a stupid theory. If it cannot be applied then it's a waste of time indulging in it. Let cultures examine themselves from within, they probably have been doing so already. I agree with ethnic communities who say that such behaviour is not representative of their communities and they would be right, in the intended context. They are not solely representative of individual communities, but of that multiculture we're talking about. Like you've (rightly) been saying, culture is not an island.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Culturalist == Racist? (none / 1) (#273)
by thefirelane on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 08:10:11 AM EST

Which is why his position is one of racism, pure and simple. You can call it culturalist but that's just another word for it.

Fine, then do you admit you are a racist for opposing female genital mutilation? After all, you oposition stems from your own Western belief of individuality.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
You're trolling (none / 0) (#279)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:42:38 PM EST

Gentital Mutilation has nothing to do with mob violence and the fact that it's the only point you have to make in response to my well posed argument demonstrates how weak your position is.

To say that I oppose such mutilation because I don't agree with your views of racial stereotyping is to show say how spectacularly you fail it.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Nope (none / 1) (#270)
by thefirelane on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 03:00:27 AM EST

but he's wrong to suggest (as he is doing, despite his denials) that the other cultures within Australia - the "non-Lebanese-muslims" - don't have a similar responsibility.

In fact I never made such a statement, and when you write things like this, it is why I point out that you are inserting words you think I wrote.

In subsequent posts, I mention that perhaps the wider 'Austrialian culture' has a xenophobic streak that should be examined as well

How ever that did not factor into my original post because my main issue was with that particular blanket statement which was given.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Yep (none / 0) (#288)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 09:35:06 PM EST

Similarly, these soccer players are not Japanese or Jewish teenagers going around beating people up and generally being rude. There is a reason for that (and no, it isn't simply because those teenagers were not there).
Yes you did...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
I'm fairly certain I follow (none / 1) (#219)
by daani on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 01:36:21 AM EST

You are, if I understand it right, pointing out a correlation between behaviour X and being a member of group Y. Put more simply, you're saying people who come from group Y are more likely to exhibit behaviour X, we should find out why.

Ok. Fair enough on the surface.

The problem is, the definition of group Y is very poorly thought out. It's easy to grab hold of color - or culture if you like - as an identifiable trait of those exhibiting behaviour X and decide thing correlation should be investigated.

Fine, except as the Leb leaders have pointed out, there is no linkage between mainstream wog culture and the behaviour we're talking about. And anyone with anything to do with this culture knows this. Furthermore they are really the only people in a position to know. Yet when they come out and give their answer - "No, there is no fundamental flaw in Leb culture that causes young people to behave abominably" - people say "I'm sick of hearing that excuse".

The reason people are disagreeing with you is not because it's all too complicated, but because it's just plain unsophisticated. We went through all this stuff in Australia when Hanson was around.

Aside: Some people in Australia say it's John Howard's fault. That it has been his governments policies that changed the culture enough that people have become openly racist again. This seems to piss off Liberal party voters. Funny that. But very symetrical.

[ Parent ]

No, you did say it... (none / 0) (#249)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 10:45:52 PM EST

Personally, there is only so many times I can hear this statement before it becomes tiresome. Every time something happens, and all the people come from group X, that groups says "Well, they aren't representative of our community". It seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous. As in, no one is examining why those people came from that community, and not another. Because the uncomfortable truth is, there is a reason. No, suicide bombers are not 'representative of the whole community'... but you know what, there is a reason they came from that community and not another.

This statement says that personally you believe that the acts of these Australian individuals of Lebanese descent are representative of the Lebanese Australian community at large. You also allude to the fact that these individuals behaved that way because they are Lebanese and not because they're idiots.

You made your point fairly clearly. Obviously you have no idea what you are saying.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Only so many times I can point this out (none / 1) (#267)
by thefirelane on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:42:57 AM EST

me: No, suicide bombers are not 'representative of the whole community'

you: you believe that the acts of these Australian individuals of Lebanese descent are representative of the Lebanese

Direct contradiction

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
You didn't answer the question... (none / 0) (#248)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 10:41:02 PM EST

It was a hypothetical asking how you would feel if that was the case? What would your explanation be?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
I'll say it again (2.00 / 2) (#265)
by thefirelane on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:35:14 AM EST

The question isn't valid concerning my original point because 'white' is not a culture, it is a race.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Cultures are not islands (2.00 / 3) (#182)
by driptray on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 06:56:32 PM EST

I think it becomes too easy for a group to say 'they are not representative' instead of examining what about that group produced such individuals.

And if we made that examination, and determined that the "thing" about the group that produced those individuals was not actually intrinsic to the group, but stemmed from the external conditions imposed on it, for example the harshly racist attitude with which its members are held by other groups. (And don't say that the racist behaviour was a response to the group behaviour - we don't know that).

Why should you change your culture when your culture is not at fault?
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

If the racism was what made for all this violence. (2.33 / 3) (#217)
by Apuleius on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 10:33:28 PM EST

they why aren't there Greeks going Skippy bashing tonight? Why not Italians? Why not Serbs and Croats? Why not Balts? Every immigrant community that arrived in Oz has faced the casual bigotry of Australian society. Only the Muslim Lebanese community responded to it in this fashion. There's a reason for it, and it isn't the bigotry they face. It's the bigotry they brought over from Lebanon.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
I'm getting tired (none / 1) (#218)
by driptray on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 12:17:55 AM EST

The racism faced by Lebanese muslims is different to that faced by other groups. The "casual bigotry" of Australian society is not uniformly applied to all different groups - it differs in quality and intensity.

That's not to say that you're wrong when you say "...it's the bigotry they brought over from Lebanon...". I'm just saying that when you start trying to pin blame on a particular culture for the behaviour of some of its members, you might have to spread some of that blame to other cultures as well.

IOW, there's a bit of truth to the idea that we are all responsible. Cultures are not islands.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

There is a reason. (2.33 / 3) (#186)
by cburke on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:22:43 PM EST

I think it becomes too easy for a group to say 'they are not representative' instead of examining what about that group produced such individuals.

And I think it has become too easy for someone on the other side to say "they are representative" and blame the behavior on the group rather than examing what about the totality of the situation produced such individuals.

Is there a reason so many suicide bombers are Muslim?  Well, certainly, martyrdom is something built strongly into Muslim culture.  Does that explain it?  Not by a long shot, because no random Muslim wakes up one day and decides to become a martyr just to be one.  How many suicide bombers came from pre-invasion Iraq vs. occupied Palestine?  Why would that be?  I'm betting it's not Palestinian cultural differences.

You observe that it wasn't Japanese or Jewish youths involved -- implying that it is the Lebanese community who produces such things.  Yet at the same time it is the Lebanese community, not Jewish or Japanese, who are the targets of scorn and racism by locals.  Violence is in human nature -- I don't believe for a second that if roles were reversed and "white culture" was being put to the test by the racism of the majority that there wouldn't be similar incidents.

I know most of us are too young to have been there, but don't you remember anything from history about the U.S. Civil Rights movement?  There were plenty of riots, Dr. Kings' peaceful protests being only one front of the conflict that was fundamentally about institutionalized racism, not the culture or inherent violence of one group.

There is absolutely nothing surprising, and absolutely nothing that says Lebonese about racial tensions being built up and eventually letting loose in situations like this one.

In closing, don't be afraid to look at the group.  But don't be afraid to look at the situation surrounding that group, the behaviors of other groups, how they interact, the whole story, because otherwise you'll never understand or solve anything.

[ Parent ]

In fact, we agree (none / 1) (#189)
by thefirelane on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:52:56 PM EST

In closing, don't be afraid to look at the group. But don't be afraid to look at the situation surrounding that group, the behaviors of other groups, how they interact, the whole story, because otherwise you'll never understand or solve anything.

You might be surprised, because everyone here has apparently painted me as a racist without even fully understanding what I did (and did not) say.

I agree with you. My point was not about the situation, but simply about this blanket statement that gets tossed out, and how it is more of a psychological shield against self-examination.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
It amazes me (none / 1) (#228)
by thankyougustad on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 03:44:38 PM EST

that you still blame our incomprehension on your being painted as a racist, and not your own inarticulateness.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
IAWTP (none / 0) (#247)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 10:37:34 PM EST

It's a shame he can't form a cogent statement.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Considering (none / 1) (#268)
by thefirelane on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:45:09 AM EST

Considering the number of times I've pointed out direct contradictions of things I've written in these text, it shouldn't.

Perhaps I should have written more, but I figured most people would be able to see the meaning in a single sentence, whereas certain people need it spelled out over a paragraph.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Difficult to see an author's meaning (none / 0) (#287)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 09:32:35 PM EST

When they cannot even grasp it themselves.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Perhaps we do (2.00 / 2) (#235)
by cburke on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 09:01:56 PM EST

Yet it doesn't surprise me that you were characterized as racist when you said:

Similarly, these soccer players are not Japanese or Jewish teenagers going around beating people up and generally being rude. There is a reason for that (and no, it isn't simply because those teenagers were not there).

The obvious implication being that Japanese or Jewish teenager would not have resorted to violence, and the reason these youths did is because of Lebanese culture.

Which I think I made it pretty clear I cannot agree with.  If this was not the implication you wished the reader to draw, then you should probably have worded your statement in a vastly different way.  I'm not sure how to mesh this statement with your replies which stated that your point was that cultures have different aspects, some good, some bad, in a way that fundamentally changes the above quote.  The quote would still seem to imply that Lebanese culture has the "bad" trait of raising teenagers to be more prone to violence in situations like this one.

If you agree with me, then you actually meant the opposite of what your quote seemed to imply, namely that it is not Lebanese culture at all but the Lebanese situation in Australia that resulted in Lebanese, not Japanese, teenagers from causing a ruckus.

[ Parent ]

Why not? (none / 1) (#266)
by thefirelane on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:39:12 AM EST

The obvious implication being that Japanese or Jewish teenager would not have resorted to violence, and the reason these youths did is because of Lebanese culture.

Which I think I made it pretty clear I cannot agree with.


To agree with me, all you need to accept is that there are some cultures where the teenagers would not respond in the same way. Does Lebanese culture produce teenagers more prone to violent response than a different culture? Possibly, but no one is examining that.

I think many culture would repond the same way (most certainly Americans as well) but my original point still stands: teenagers from some cultures would respond in a different way.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Then we don't agree. (3.00 / 2) (#276)
by cburke on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 11:04:45 AM EST

And apparently I didn't misinterpret your statement at all, so there was never a chance that we agreed.

To agree with me, all you need to accept is that there are some cultures where the teenagers would not respond in the same way.

More specifically, I would have to accept that Lebanese culture is what caused the youths to respond in this way, a reaction that Japanese or Jewish culture would not have resulted in.

Which, no, I can't agree with for reason I already stated.

Does Lebanese culture produce teenagers more prone to violent response than a different culture? Possibly, but no one is examining that.

You seem to have already decided that Lebanese culture does, while Japanese and Jewish culture does not.  

I find this to be highly dubious at best. About the only culture I could imagine reacting in a substantively differenty way would be, possibly, Buddist monks.  Yet even then, it would simply be a matter of time before some group of hot-headed monks-to-be forgot about harmony with the universe for a minute and punched in the faces of the most conveniently available representative of their oppressors.  Such is youth and human nature.

The reason nobody is closely examining the traits of Lebanese culture that produced these events is because everything that happened is perfectly understandable via an understanding of the history of racial conflicts and of human nature.  No reason to appeal to culture.

but my original point still stands: teenagers from some cultures would respond in a different way.

You can try to water down your point until it is essentially meaningless so that people nod their heads, but then I will ask "So what does this mean, in practice?" and I get Lebanese would have been violent and Japanese would not, and I say no, your point does not stand.

[ Parent ]

The Lebanese have it easy. (none / 1) (#297)
by Apuleius on Sun Dec 25, 2005 at 07:06:22 PM EST

Try being an East Asian in Australia. This is nonsense. This violence isn't happening because of what the Muslim Lebanese face. It's happening because of the racism the Muslim Lebanese community harbors by itself.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
WTF? (none / 0) (#308)
by D Jade on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:49:48 PM EST

What the hell are you talking about?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Racism. (none / 0) (#310)
by Apuleius on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:57:45 PM EST

Specifically, Lebanese racism against non-Lebanese.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
So (none / 0) (#311)
by D Jade on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 06:06:32 PM EST

How does Lebanese racism against non-Lebanese make life any more or less difficult for an east asian than any other Australian? Why should we try being east asian in Australia? I fail to see how this sentence is relevant to the rest of your comment.

Like I said; what the fuck?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Song for the mob: 5 yards (2.00 / 3) (#148)
by JonathanJ on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:56:06 PM EST

You're only one tabloid press from a lynch mob
You're only one acting role from a real job
You're only one strip of flesh from your bones
You're only one species away from Alan Jones.

You're only one small speck in space
You're only one life, soon erased
Be there none left on Eath but you
One thing will still remain true:

You're only five yards from a fuckwit

TISM, 5 yards


** JJ **
more TISM wankery... (none / 0) (#193)
by Horthy Hosthoh on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 09:43:38 PM EST

...

Down in Melbourne we think togetherness
Means connecting in a literal sense

...

The boys who cruise this neighborhood
Think clubbing is done with a length of wood

TISM, Dumb 'n' Base

[ Parent ]

Excellent! (none / 1) (#163)
by Futurepower on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 05:09:13 AM EST

Great writing. Clear communication.

A+ (happy face sticker) (none / 1) (#185)
by Orange Tanning Cream on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 07:21:53 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Brilliant (3.00 / 4) (#169)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:37:46 AM EST

I have to say, that this is the most accurate summing up of the problem that I have yet heard. Good job, you are to be commended!

TBSDY

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה

On second thoughts.... (none / 1) (#172)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:50:02 AM EST

... what about those white supremicist groups that turned up? Why not get any commentatory about their behaviour? What about the fact that police had no power to stop people from drinking? Alcohol had a huge part to play in the violence.

TBSDY

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

Have you ever tried to get in the way of (none / 0) (#246)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 10:32:58 PM EST

an Aussie and his beer?

I wouldn't try it matey. That's like trying to take the guns away from USians.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#315)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 11:13:18 AM EST

I once tried to steal my brother's beer, he was training for the army so when I woke up in hospital I discovered I was missing my arms. I'm currently typing letters with my tongue.

Must remember not to steal beer from Australian males who are about to join the defense forces.

TBSDY

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

-1 Doesn't explain why it's Bush's Fault (2.00 / 8) (#173)
by kuroXhin on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 11:19:37 AM EST

No where in the article is the blantant imperialist materialism and racism of America brought up and how it causes race riots.

Really, I expect better from K5.

The Economist - The Playboy of the new world order!

Everyone already understands that (3.00 / 4) (#181)
by thankyougustad on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 06:40:31 PM EST

no need to rehash it all here.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Actually, (1.33 / 3) (#179)
by alphaxer0 on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 03:42:54 PM EST

Social science data of the 1988-90 time period show only a tiny percentage of people supported independence for Bosnia or Croatia, until the wars broke out. Thats why Tudjman was forced to mobilize units like the convicts brigade and use gangsters like Tuta to do the fighting. The same is true for the Serbs as well.

The updated historiography debunks most of the lingering mythology built up during the wars. Books like Myth of Ethnic War, by V.P. Gagnon, Remnants of War, by Mueller, Balkan Holocausts, by MacDonald, and National Deconstruction by Campbell are good places to start.

Some timely news from science... (2.50 / 2) (#203)
by OzJuggler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 08:59:30 AM EST

(and I know race isn't really about skin colour, but thought it was interesting anyway)

Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin

Now that's two mutations I know of that separate us whiteys from da old school. First there is the mutation in us caucasians that can break down lactose into more easily digestible chemicals. Most people in the world can't drink milk after reaching adulthood, but caucasians can because of this mutation. I have no idea what the hell I would eat for breakfast every morning if it weren't for this mutation. Cornmeal pancakes maybe. (And four fried chickens. And dry white toast.)

And now there's the single-nucleotide mutation that robs us of the melanin that we so desperately and ineffectively try to replace with excessive sunbathing, solariums, and ridiculous cosmetic spray-on pigments.

When they find the gene that codes for sense of rhythm and dancing ability, well goddammit we want them back too. ;-)

OzJuggler.
"And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.

butter = no lactose (none / 0) (#210)
by thankyougustad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 05:26:12 PM EST



No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Prussian Blue dedicates new song to Sydney 5000! (1.00 / 11) (#220)
by Jenab on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 03:05:27 AM EST

The US girl band Prussian Blue has released a new song, ]Ocean of Warriors, which they have dedicated to the 5000 Australian Patriots who turned out to defend the Sydney Beach from Lebanese gangs.

Prussian Blue is an American Girl Band formed by 13-year-old California twins Lynx and Lamb Gaede, represented for legal purposes by their mother, April Gaede.

Image: Lynx with violin, Lamb with guitar.
Photo Credit: Murrey Media Productions.
Lynx and Lamb

Download: Ocean of Warriors

More Prussian Blue images and music downloads at
Jerry's Prussian Blue Page

Thank you Australia! Your flag flies in America! jabpage.org

And keep those beaches clean & safe for the ladies and kids!

serious? (none / 1) (#221)
by schwitzkroko on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 04:34:39 AM EST

would-be folk music with a global geopolitical twist for bald neo nazi internet blonde softcore teen porn wankers. only in america. ROTFL
promised seven virgins in heaven only after islan djihad martyrdom - a standard in northern mythologys valhalla? haha, i love you guys!

ciao
j

[ Parent ]
Go away, dearie. (none / 1) (#245)
by Apuleius on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 10:23:29 PM EST

Here's a clue: when an Aussie aborigine and a white person marry, the children will often pass for white. A good portion of those 5,000 patriots you're talking about are not white by your standards.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
The question of ethnicity (2.25 / 4) (#271)
by jokerinthepack on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 05:22:06 AM EST

Why are Australians obsessed by the idea of ethnicity when a crime happens to be committed by anyone other than a WASP? The Canterbury Bulldogs, a well-known rugby league club, were accused of mass rape last year - nobody referred to them as a white Protestant or Catholic bunch who were accused of rape.
But the moment a Lebanese Muslim is in the same situation, it all takes on a different hue - then the crime is one that's committed by someone subscribing to the Islamic faith and also one who is an Arab.
While the media can shape attitudes, it's easy to dump the blame on them. When are people going to start taking responsibility for their own actions? Or is the mob the beacon for all and sundry?
It disgusts me.

How many people (none / 0) (#286)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 09:29:08 PM EST

have you spoken to about the Bulldog incident that agree that this was acceptable behaviour?

How many people have you spoken to that agree that the Cronulla incident was purely the fault of the Lebanese?

I ask because I'm yet to speak to anyone about these issues that has the same opinion as that offered by the media (that it's purely a racially motivated incident).

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

My view (none / 1) (#272)
by Cackmobile on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:32:51 AM EST

I grew up in Sydney (i;m 25) so have a different view on things. First off I think the shire (where cronula is) is a redneck backwater part of sydney. Basically the only area that is multicultural. Second that what the mob did was totally wrong. Having siad that they had my support until they ran amok. Something needed to be down about the behaviour of young lebanese men in Sydney. They are always causing trouble. Everyone who grew up recently has a story uf when they were attacked by them for no reason. If you say the wrong thing or look at them they will attack. When they do its never 1 on 1 but 30 on 1. Now they start claiming the beach for themselves. The beach is for everyone (definatley not just for the shire locals either) I love multicultural australia and know that most lebanese imigrants are hard working etc but something needs to be down about the young men. What happen during the riots was not right. Also i knew no leb young men were going to show for the fight. they don't enjoy fight when it won't be 30 on 1

For every story I hear like this (none / 0) (#285)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 09:26:47 PM EST

I hear another one about Asian gangs, or Skippy gangs or any other group of thugs beating up on people. Maybe it seems to be the Lebanese that are doing it round there, but this kind of thing is not exclusive to one ethnic group in this country.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure you've thought it through. (none / 0) (#300)
by RobRoy on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 09:16:42 PM EST

Having [said] that they had my support until they ran amok.

A demonstration against public policy may be useful. It is much more difficult to see what will be gained by demonstrating against a racial group.

I suspect that characterizing the young men that you've had bother with during your recent growing up by their racial group is not helpful to anyone. If you believe that most Lebanese immigrants are hard working etc then there is no need to characterize people who make you feel threatened on the beach as one racial group or other.
Nor Justified. Certainly white thugs (and murderers) such as the "bra-boys" [what's with the cross-dressing surfies?] practice intimidation and territoriality on the beach as much (or more so) than any other group.



[ Parent ]
why now? (none / 1) (#298)
by user 956 on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 12:06:44 AM EST

Why is all this breaking out in the world now? I was just reading this weekend about how regions in France have passed laws prohibiting the sale of *gasoline*, so people can't create molotov cocktails and the like. Is there some sort of lynchpin that I've missed, or something?
---

Top Chuck Norris Facts.

(lazy sunday)
Not really (none / 1) (#307)
by D Jade on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:45:53 PM EST

The riots in France have been a long time coming. When France with drew from Algeria they had to take all of the French Algerians with them. So they put them up in commissioned housing estates and left them to rot for four decades. The troubles of these people have been conveniently ignored by the French because they are generally in different geographical locations. Out of sight, out of mind.

It's funny how quickly things change when they leave their own neighbourhoods and start trashing the rest of France.

On the Australian "race" riots, if you could call them that, it's important to note that this "race" riot is largely a spectre of the media. Firstly, they printed a so-called text message that was doing the rounds. It was something along the lines of "Sunday is bash a leb and wog day". Not only did the papers print it, they put it in bold text on the front page of the newspapers.

It was more a case of a few thousand bored idiots that went down to the beach to pick fights and get smashed instead of doing it at the pub like the rest of their idiot friends.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Racial intolerance survey result (none / 0) (#299)
by OzJuggler on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 12:38:25 AM EST

Survey names most racist Sydney suburbs

Bad point: The Anglo-Saxons are the most racist.
Good point: Sydney is less racist than the USA.

(Or maybe Aussies lie their pants off in surveys.)

OzJuggler.
"And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.

Re: Sydney is less racist than the USA. (none / 0) (#313)
by eht on Thu Jan 12, 2006 at 08:34:16 AM EST

I think Aussies lie their pants off on surveys. The article you link to claims "Sydney is less racist than the USA" but then the current Prime Minister's election slogan was "We'll decide who comes to this country, and the conditions under which they come" and he still got elected. And this is the fourth time he's been in that office.

[ Parent ]
Sydney is not the Prime Minister! -nt (none / 1) (#314)
by OzJuggler on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 05:03:50 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Sydney Race Riots | 315 comments (297 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!