http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4577
Racism is not simply black and white
By Ghassan Hage - posted Friday, 16 June 2006 Sign Up for free e-mail updates!Sign Up for free e-mail updates!
For some time now, there has been a divergence between the images of racism in research and those that lie behind much anti-racist policy and activism. Many opposed to racism see it in a very simplistic fashion: racists are always white and bad and their victims are always not so white and good. The limited nature of this stance clearly shows in the poverty of the reactions to the Cronulla violence.
Anti-racism in Australia needs to re-invent itself, whether it aims for the difficult goal of getting through to racists, to invite them to reflect on the negative effect of their actions, or the easier but just role of helping to formulate policy that limits the capacity of racists to hurt their victims.
Racists are not one-dimensional, evil people. They can be good people too, and often are. Not many people engaging in racism see themselves in the image of our dominant negative stereotypes of what a racist should be like: a sleazy white supremacist, a violent skinhead or a guard in a Nazi concentration camp.
Advertisement
Often the reverse is true: racists feel morally righteous and justified in having the attitude towards certain others that they have. But even when they don't, racists remain human beings and their weaknesses are the weaknesses of all of us as human beings.
They are not some breed apart as anti-racist moralisers make them out to be. Beside being incorrect, the portrayal of racists as villains is inefficient as an anti-racist strategy. It disallows, for example, the possibility of communication with people who simply do not feel themselves to be villains at all. Furthermore, such a conception of racists works to stop people from seeing racism in the most obvious places. This has been the case in some of the commentaries on the Cronulla events.
There are those who argue that, on the whole, the crowd that assembled on the beach was not racist because only a handful among them were genuine wog-haters. The others were just average young blokes who wanted to make a point.
So, to qualify as racist, a crowd should be full of very nasty people. This is used to pull out the trick of convincing us that the very obvious fact - that the Cronulla crowd looked and acted like any other racist crowd in history before it - is not obvious at all, since there were lots of good people on the beach that day who just wanted to make a point. Anti-racists should not be saying: "No, they weren't nice people - they were racists." They should be saying: "Yes, there were nice people among them, but this does not make the crowd any less racist."
Along with the division of people as good and bad lies a common anti-racist conception of racism as always white. This is also far from the truth: everybody can be racist. White people of a European background do not have a monopoly on racist beliefs and attitudes; it is a feature of all cultures.
But there is a difference between racism as a negative portrayal of people and racism as a power to do negative things. While everybody can have racist beliefs, not everybody has the power to act on their beliefs.
This is where white racism derives its historical importance. White people, historically speaking, have been in a position of power so that they have been able to act on their racism more so than others. If white racism has had the power to discriminate and shape society more than others, this does not mean that non-white racism has had no effect at all. Indeed, the victims of racism themselves are not necessarily good. Just because one is a victim of racism does not make one virtuous.
Victims of racism can be racists themselves. Anti-racists should recognise and be able to tackle cases where non-whites are discriminating against others. These could be minor cases where non-white owners of small firms discriminate against white job-seekers, or more important and violent cases, such as the Lebanese-background rapists targeting what they have classified as Australian girls. If they fail to tackle such cases, anti-racists, whether they are activists or legislators, will appear to be morally singling out white people who will feel treated as if they have a disease no one else has.
The non-recognition of racism by minority groups by anti-racists has left the way open for its strategic use by majority racists. In Australia, a number of media commentators and politicians, prejudiced against certain minority groups, are using the fact that such groups have racist tendencies and racist individuals among them to legitimise the racism of the majority towards them. We need to keep the racism of the minorities in check, because they can still hurt people, because minorities can become majorities, and because those who are minorities in one place can be a majority in another. Nevertheless, emphasising racism of minority groups cannot be done at the expense of ignoring the racism of the majority.
The idea of not seeing that there are Lebanese-Muslim forms of racism that exist in Australia and that need to be dealt with seriously is naive at best. But the idea of equalising between the Cronulla riots and Lebanese racism is equally ridiculous, when it is not simply mischievous. In terms of world history it is the racism of the majority, not that of the minorities, that has led to the most evil racist situations known to us: slavery, apartheid and the Holocaust.
One of the greatest political theorists who has worked on racism is the Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt. She emphasised that racists do not come to us clothed as monsters: she called this the banality of evil.
But what is particularly evil about racism is that its ordinariness and banality can transform very rapidly and before we know it into a Grand Evil, such as mass extermination. Our era is generating such lopsided logics, and the state of anti-Muslim animosity that is being legitimised and routinised is such that it is not far-fetched to imagine ourselves engaging in the racist mass incarceration or even extermination of Muslims on the grounds that they are racists. This is one, among many reasons, anti-racists need to sharpen their tools.
First published in the Sydney Morning Herald on June 12, 2006.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
Comments
Comments Printable version
Printable version Subscribe
Subscribe Email a friend
Email a friend
Dr Ghassan Hage is associate professor of anthropology at the University of Sydney.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
A tolerant society is more than just an attitude - Editor, The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/tolerant-society-more-than-just-attitude/2006/06/12/1149964464095.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
A tolerant society is more than just an attitude
June 13, 2006
No man is an island entire of itself, as poet John Donne declared in Meditation XVII about 400 years ago. Donne, a preacher, was offering a theological and philosophical discourse on the relationship between men, women and God. He was not, it would be fair to say, thinking about immigration and its effect on a nation. Yet the sentiment behind the imagery goes to the heart of a country's philosophy towards its citizens and who it wants to be its citizens.
Donne goes on to say: "Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." So it is that every person is a piece of the country, whether their family has been here for generations or mere years. A survey published today in The Age reveals how Australians, who after all were all immigrants once, view the role of migrants in society. It is part of a survey conducted in May by Associated Press/Ipsos Poll, in which 7986 people in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Britain and the US were asked their views on immigrants.
The poll found that Canadians had the most positive regard to immigration. About 75 per cent said immigrants had a "somewhat good or very good influence". The US and Australia shared this opinion with 54 per cent and 52 per cent respectively. However, 39 per cent of the 1009 Australians polled thought immigrants were a "bad influence". An argument, however, could be mounted that this is a small sample of a country's population.
Other findings nationwide were: younger Australians, generally, were more likely to have a positive view on migrants; higher income and tertiary levels led to a greater positive perception of migrants; more than two-thirds of Australians did not see much likelihood in migrants being criminals; and most Australians thought migrants worked as hard, or harder, than those born in this country.
Victoria led the nation on its positive outlook towards immigrants: 63 per cent believed newcomers had a "very good or somewhat good" impact on the community. This figure is much more than that of other states. This is not surprising when it is considered that, according to the 2001 census, 43 per cent of Victorians had at least one parent born overseas. On a micro-level, this can be illustrated with the City of Greater Dandenong, which is home to people from more than 150 countries. Almost half its residents are from non-English-speaking backgrounds and more than 50 per cent were born overseas. The census also found that 23 per cent of Australians are born overseas. More than 200 languages are spoken.
This flood of diversity began as an Anglo-Celtic stream for the first half of last century. By the '60s and '70s, however, the stream had been diluted with people from other countries, such as Italy and Greece, to the present-day richness of cultures.
While this integration of people is something for which Australia should be proud, there are undercurrents that cannot be ignored. These are manifested in the term un-Australian, or in other words: not one of us. It is palpably absurd, given the composition of the nation in this present day, to invoke such an image. Immigration has become mixed in the past few years with other factors, such as asylum seekers, detention centres, terrorism, riots and jobs. Immigration has been one of the most contentious issues in public life in recent years. The immigration card has been played by both sides of politics, and it honours no one to do so. People's lives are at stake. A report, based on a Senate inquiry into new asylum laws that denies asylum seekers access to the Australian legal system, is to be tabled today. In recent days, it has also emerged that 26 Australian citizens had been wrongly held in detention centres. In addition, allegations have been raised of sexual assault in Villawood detention centre, which the Government is expected to confirm in a report this week.
While surveys such as the one published today can give some comfort that, by and large, Australians are a tolerant lot, the measure of our humanity is revealed not just in what we think, but in how we act to all on this island home.
A tolerant society is more than just an attitude
June 13, 2006
No man is an island entire of itself, as poet John Donne declared in Meditation XVII about 400 years ago. Donne, a preacher, was offering a theological and philosophical discourse on the relationship between men, women and God. He was not, it would be fair to say, thinking about immigration and its effect on a nation. Yet the sentiment behind the imagery goes to the heart of a country's philosophy towards its citizens and who it wants to be its citizens.
Donne goes on to say: "Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." So it is that every person is a piece of the country, whether their family has been here for generations or mere years. A survey published today in The Age reveals how Australians, who after all were all immigrants once, view the role of migrants in society. It is part of a survey conducted in May by Associated Press/Ipsos Poll, in which 7986 people in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Britain and the US were asked their views on immigrants.
The poll found that Canadians had the most positive regard to immigration. About 75 per cent said immigrants had a "somewhat good or very good influence". The US and Australia shared this opinion with 54 per cent and 52 per cent respectively. However, 39 per cent of the 1009 Australians polled thought immigrants were a "bad influence". An argument, however, could be mounted that this is a small sample of a country's population.
Other findings nationwide were: younger Australians, generally, were more likely to have a positive view on migrants; higher income and tertiary levels led to a greater positive perception of migrants; more than two-thirds of Australians did not see much likelihood in migrants being criminals; and most Australians thought migrants worked as hard, or harder, than those born in this country.
Victoria led the nation on its positive outlook towards immigrants: 63 per cent believed newcomers had a "very good or somewhat good" impact on the community. This figure is much more than that of other states. This is not surprising when it is considered that, according to the 2001 census, 43 per cent of Victorians had at least one parent born overseas. On a micro-level, this can be illustrated with the City of Greater Dandenong, which is home to people from more than 150 countries. Almost half its residents are from non-English-speaking backgrounds and more than 50 per cent were born overseas. The census also found that 23 per cent of Australians are born overseas. More than 200 languages are spoken.
This flood of diversity began as an Anglo-Celtic stream for the first half of last century. By the '60s and '70s, however, the stream had been diluted with people from other countries, such as Italy and Greece, to the present-day richness of cultures.
While this integration of people is something for which Australia should be proud, there are undercurrents that cannot be ignored. These are manifested in the term un-Australian, or in other words: not one of us. It is palpably absurd, given the composition of the nation in this present day, to invoke such an image. Immigration has become mixed in the past few years with other factors, such as asylum seekers, detention centres, terrorism, riots and jobs. Immigration has been one of the most contentious issues in public life in recent years. The immigration card has been played by both sides of politics, and it honours no one to do so. People's lives are at stake. A report, based on a Senate inquiry into new asylum laws that denies asylum seekers access to the Australian legal system, is to be tabled today. In recent days, it has also emerged that 26 Australian citizens had been wrongly held in detention centres. In addition, allegations have been raised of sexual assault in Villawood detention centre, which the Government is expected to confirm in a report this week.
While surveys such as the one published today can give some comfort that, by and large, Australians are a tolerant lot, the measure of our humanity is revealed not just in what we think, but in how we act to all on this island home.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Racial diversity leads in different directions - Iain MacWhirter, The Herald UK
An interesting discussion and comparison of England and Scotland...Sue Ellson
http://www.theherald.co.uk/63024.shtml
Racial diversity leads in different directions
Iain MacWhirter
Progressive nationalism is the kind of thing you'd expect to hear debated at a Scottish National Party conference rather than in the salons of New Labour. But it is rapidly becoming one of the key issues on the metropolitan centre-left. It's the English variety, of course, and suddenly it has become respectable.
The editor of the journal, Prospect, David Goodhart, has published a series of articles and a Demos pamphlet calling for the left to embrace English identity politics. He thinks liberals should stop being so inclusive and, well, liberal about immigration and start defending the rights of indigenous English to own their culture. Goodhart says: "The language of liberal universalism that dominates public debate ignores the real affinities of place and people." He argues that the two waves of immigration, from the
Commonwealth in the 1950s, and by asylum seekers in the 1990s, have undermined the cohesion of English society and shattered the social consensus that underpins the welfare state.
"Lifestyle diversity and high immigration bring cultural and economic dynamism," he says, "but they can erode feelings of mutual obligation, reducing willingness to pay tax and even encouraging a retreat from the public domain."
According to Goodhart, you can't expect people to act as a community when they don't feel like a community. Working-class people have seen their neighbourhoods changed out of all recognition and have seen incomers get what the natives see as preferential treatment by the welfare state.
Of course, there is no evidence that white people are treated unfairly by the welfare state – but to Goodhart, that doesn't really matter. He believes, like Burke, that a sense of nationhood grows out of family and kinship; common history and common language. "To put it bluntly," he says, "most of us prefer our own kind."
Goodhart has been condemned as a liberal Enoch Powell. While he hasn't exactly warned of "rivers of blood", he does speak in increas-ingly apocalyptic terms. "The left's recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people it once championed."
He hasn't called for immigration to be halted, but Goodhart has proposed limits on citizenship. "Purely economic migrants or certain kinds of refugees could be allowed temporary residence and the right to work (but not to vote) and be given access to only limited parts of the welfare state, while permanent
welfare state – but to Goodhart, that doesn't really matter. He believes, like Burke, that a sense of nationhood grows out of family and kinship; common history and common language. "To put it bluntly," he says, "most of us prefer our own kind."
Goodhart has been condemned as a liberal Enoch Powell. While he hasn't exactly warned of "rivers of blood", he does speak in increas-ingly apocalyptic terms. "The left's recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people it once championed."
He hasn't called for immigration to be halted, but Goodhart has proposed limits on citizenship. "Purely economic migrants or certain kinds of refugees could be allowed temporary residence and the right to work (but not to vote) and be given access to only limited parts of the welfare state, while permanent migrants who make the effort to become citizens would get full access to welfare." Since this would appear to make immigrants second-class citizens, Goodhart has, not surprisingly, been accused of advocating racial discrimination.
Now, what has all this to do with us? Well, first of all, any significant developments in English thinking on immigrants cannot but be of interest, if only because we need more of them and, increasingly, England doesn't. Nor can the emergence of English nationalism as something more than a football phenomenon be ignored up here, lest we end up on the wrong side of it.
Even Gordon Brown has been influenced by Goodhart's ideas and has cited his views on citizenship in a recent speech to the British Council. "The recognition of the importance of and the need to celebrate and entrench a Britishness defined by shared values strong enough to overcome discordant claims of separatism and disintegration," he said. Brown is only too conscious of his own ethnicity, and has been wrapping himself in the Union Flag, backing Beckham and calling for citizenship to be promoted in schools.
Now, the Chancellor clearly has SNP separatism in mind. However, consciously or not, he has been contributing to the rising clamour south of the border for a more clearly-defined sense of English national identification. When David Goodhart calls for more citizenship and history lessons in schools, he isn't talking about Holyrood and Wallace.
The reassessment of citizenship, like Goodhart's progressive nationalism, is, of course, a response to the rise of the British National Party in the English
migrants who make the effort to become citizens would get full access to welfare." Since this would appear to make immigrants second-class citizens, Goodhart has, not surprisingly, been accused of advocating racial discrimination.
Now, what has all this to do with us? Well, first of all, any significant developments in English thinking on immigrants cannot but be of interest, if only because we need more of them and, increasingly, England doesn't. Nor can the emergence of English nationalism as something more than a football phenomenon be ignored up here, lest we end up on the wrong side of it.
Even Gordon Brown has been influenced by Goodhart's ideas and has cited his views on citizenship in a recent speech to the British Council. "The recognition of the importance of and the need to celebrate and entrench a Britishness defined by shared values strong enough to overcome discordant claims of separatism and disintegration," he said. Brown is only too conscious of his own ethnicity, and has been wrapping himself in the Union Flag, backing Beckham and calling for citizenship to be promoted in schools.
Now, the Chancellor clearly has SNP separatism in mind. However, consciously or not, he has been contributing to the rising clamour south of the border for a more clearly-defined sense of English national identification. When David Goodhart calls for more citizenship and history lessons in schools, he isn't talking about Holyrood and Wallace.
The reassessment of citizenship, like Goodhart's progressive nationalism, is, of course, a response to the rise of the British National Party in the English local elections, and the prevalence of the cross of St George – which used to be a BNP emblem – on the football terraces. It is also a response to the crisis of multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism was the policy, promoted by many English local authorities after the Scarman Report into the Brixton riots in 1981, of encouraging ethnic and cultural diversity in cities. It seemed like common sense. However, when it emerged that some of the London bombers had been born and brought up in England, and yet appeared to regard themselves as living in a different and hostile country, people began to question whether multiculturalism wasn't leading to ethnic separatism.
Yet, when people attack multiculturalism, they are inclined to forget the UK has been a multicultural country since long before the Empire Windrush began mass Commonwealth immigration. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland formed the original multicultural partnership. There is an obvious danger that Scots could become collateral damage if this confusion and anxiety about the disintegration of English civil society turns nasty. Some say it already has. There are laws against inciting racial hatred, but it remains quite acceptable for commentators in London to condemn the "bloody Scots", "the Scottish raj" and claim that Scots are draining the English Exchequer. We keep being told that a Scot shouldn't be allowed to enter No 10, and even liberal David Cameron has talked seriously of denying Scottish MPs full voting rights in the UK parliament.
This is all presented as some kind of constitutional response to devolution, but what they are really talking about is a kind of dual citizenship, at least in
ecognition of the importance of and the need to celebrate and entrench a Britishness defined by shared values strong enough to overcome discordant claims of separatism and disintegration," he said. Brown is only too conscious of his own ethnicity, and has been wrapping himself in the Union Flag, backing Beckham and calling for citizenship to be promoted in schools.
Now, the Chancellor clearly has SNP separatism in mind. However, consciously or not, he has been contributing to the rising clamour south of the border for a more clearly-defined sense of English national identification. When David Goodhart calls for more citizenship and history lessons in schools, he isn't talking about Holyrood and Wallace.
The reassessment of citizenship, like Goodhart's progressive nationalism, is, of course, a response to the rise of the British National Party in the English local
itish National Party in the English local elections, and the prevalence of the cross of St George – which used to be a BNP emblem – on the football terraces. It is also a response to the crisis of multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism was the policy, promoted by many English local authorities after the Scarman Report into the Brixton riots in 1981, of encouraging ethnic and cultural diversity in cities. It seemed like common sense. However, when it emerged that some of the London bombers had been born and brought up in England, and yet appeared to regard themselves as living in a different and hostile country, people began to question whether multiculturalism wasn't leading to ethnic separatism.
Yet, when people attack multiculturalism, they are inclined to forget the UK has been a multicultural country since long before the Empire
ountry since long before the Empire Windrush began mass Commonwealth immigration. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland formed the original multicultural partnership. There is an obvious danger that Scots could become collateral damage if this confusion and anxiety about the disintegration of English civil society turns nasty. Some say it already has. There are laws against inciting racial hatred, but it remains quite acceptable for commentators in London to condemn the "bloody Scots", "the Scottish raj" and claim that Scots are draining the English Exchequer. We keep being told that a Scot shouldn't be allowed to enter No 10, and even liberal David Cameron has talked seriously of denying Scottish MPs full voting rights in the UK parliament.
This is all presented as some kind of constitutional response to devolution, but what they are really talking about is a kind of dual citizenship, at least in
parliament. Unless or until there is an independent Scotland, Westminster remains the UK parliament.
What is being proposed is an ethnic criteria being introduced into democratic representation which could very easily extend to citizenship itself. But there is another, more disturbing, question posed by Goodhart's analysis. He argues that the welfare state is only possible in socially and ethnically homogeneous states with intensely shared values. That's the difference, he believes, between Nordic states such as Sweden, which have a strong welfare state, and the United States of America, which doesn't. It could also be the difference between Scotland and England.
Welfare institutions such as the NHS, which are under challenge in England, do, indeed, remain popular in Scotland, where there is a much firmer
commitment to collective provision. Could it be that Scots remain social democratic because Scotland remains much more white than England? Are we more like Sweden because mass immigration stopped at the border? It's a disturbing thought.
If Goodhart is right – and I hope sincerely he isn't – then Scotland and England may be heading in
very different directions, essentially because of relative racial diversity. Either way, it would be ironic if Scots were to become alienated from the UK because England is unable to cope with the consequences of mass immigration. Progressive nationalism needs watching.
Read Iain Macwhirter also in the Sunday Herald
http://www.theherald.co.uk/63024.shtml
Racial diversity leads in different directions
Iain MacWhirter
Progressive nationalism is the kind of thing you'd expect to hear debated at a Scottish National Party conference rather than in the salons of New Labour. But it is rapidly becoming one of the key issues on the metropolitan centre-left. It's the English variety, of course, and suddenly it has become respectable.
The editor of the journal, Prospect, David Goodhart, has published a series of articles and a Demos pamphlet calling for the left to embrace English identity politics. He thinks liberals should stop being so inclusive and, well, liberal about immigration and start defending the rights of indigenous English to own their culture. Goodhart says: "The language of liberal universalism that dominates public debate ignores the real affinities of place and people." He argues that the two waves of immigration, from the
Commonwealth in the 1950s, and by asylum seekers in the 1990s, have undermined the cohesion of English society and shattered the social consensus that underpins the welfare state.
"Lifestyle diversity and high immigration bring cultural and economic dynamism," he says, "but they can erode feelings of mutual obligation, reducing willingness to pay tax and even encouraging a retreat from the public domain."
According to Goodhart, you can't expect people to act as a community when they don't feel like a community. Working-class people have seen their neighbourhoods changed out of all recognition and have seen incomers get what the natives see as preferential treatment by the welfare state.
Of course, there is no evidence that white people are treated unfairly by the welfare state – but to Goodhart, that doesn't really matter. He believes, like Burke, that a sense of nationhood grows out of family and kinship; common history and common language. "To put it bluntly," he says, "most of us prefer our own kind."
Goodhart has been condemned as a liberal Enoch Powell. While he hasn't exactly warned of "rivers of blood", he does speak in increas-ingly apocalyptic terms. "The left's recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people it once championed."
He hasn't called for immigration to be halted, but Goodhart has proposed limits on citizenship. "Purely economic migrants or certain kinds of refugees could be allowed temporary residence and the right to work (but not to vote) and be given access to only limited parts of the welfare state, while permanent
welfare state – but to Goodhart, that doesn't really matter. He believes, like Burke, that a sense of nationhood grows out of family and kinship; common history and common language. "To put it bluntly," he says, "most of us prefer our own kind."
Goodhart has been condemned as a liberal Enoch Powell. While he hasn't exactly warned of "rivers of blood", he does speak in increas-ingly apocalyptic terms. "The left's recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people it once championed."
He hasn't called for immigration to be halted, but Goodhart has proposed limits on citizenship. "Purely economic migrants or certain kinds of refugees could be allowed temporary residence and the right to work (but not to vote) and be given access to only limited parts of the welfare state, while permanent migrants who make the effort to become citizens would get full access to welfare." Since this would appear to make immigrants second-class citizens, Goodhart has, not surprisingly, been accused of advocating racial discrimination.
Now, what has all this to do with us? Well, first of all, any significant developments in English thinking on immigrants cannot but be of interest, if only because we need more of them and, increasingly, England doesn't. Nor can the emergence of English nationalism as something more than a football phenomenon be ignored up here, lest we end up on the wrong side of it.
Even Gordon Brown has been influenced by Goodhart's ideas and has cited his views on citizenship in a recent speech to the British Council. "The recognition of the importance of and the need to celebrate and entrench a Britishness defined by shared values strong enough to overcome discordant claims of separatism and disintegration," he said. Brown is only too conscious of his own ethnicity, and has been wrapping himself in the Union Flag, backing Beckham and calling for citizenship to be promoted in schools.
Now, the Chancellor clearly has SNP separatism in mind. However, consciously or not, he has been contributing to the rising clamour south of the border for a more clearly-defined sense of English national identification. When David Goodhart calls for more citizenship and history lessons in schools, he isn't talking about Holyrood and Wallace.
The reassessment of citizenship, like Goodhart's progressive nationalism, is, of course, a response to the rise of the British National Party in the English
migrants who make the effort to become citizens would get full access to welfare." Since this would appear to make immigrants second-class citizens, Goodhart has, not surprisingly, been accused of advocating racial discrimination.
Now, what has all this to do with us? Well, first of all, any significant developments in English thinking on immigrants cannot but be of interest, if only because we need more of them and, increasingly, England doesn't. Nor can the emergence of English nationalism as something more than a football phenomenon be ignored up here, lest we end up on the wrong side of it.
Even Gordon Brown has been influenced by Goodhart's ideas and has cited his views on citizenship in a recent speech to the British Council. "The recognition of the importance of and the need to celebrate and entrench a Britishness defined by shared values strong enough to overcome discordant claims of separatism and disintegration," he said. Brown is only too conscious of his own ethnicity, and has been wrapping himself in the Union Flag, backing Beckham and calling for citizenship to be promoted in schools.
Now, the Chancellor clearly has SNP separatism in mind. However, consciously or not, he has been contributing to the rising clamour south of the border for a more clearly-defined sense of English national identification. When David Goodhart calls for more citizenship and history lessons in schools, he isn't talking about Holyrood and Wallace.
The reassessment of citizenship, like Goodhart's progressive nationalism, is, of course, a response to the rise of the British National Party in the English local elections, and the prevalence of the cross of St George – which used to be a BNP emblem – on the football terraces. It is also a response to the crisis of multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism was the policy, promoted by many English local authorities after the Scarman Report into the Brixton riots in 1981, of encouraging ethnic and cultural diversity in cities. It seemed like common sense. However, when it emerged that some of the London bombers had been born and brought up in England, and yet appeared to regard themselves as living in a different and hostile country, people began to question whether multiculturalism wasn't leading to ethnic separatism.
Yet, when people attack multiculturalism, they are inclined to forget the UK has been a multicultural country since long before the Empire Windrush began mass Commonwealth immigration. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland formed the original multicultural partnership. There is an obvious danger that Scots could become collateral damage if this confusion and anxiety about the disintegration of English civil society turns nasty. Some say it already has. There are laws against inciting racial hatred, but it remains quite acceptable for commentators in London to condemn the "bloody Scots", "the Scottish raj" and claim that Scots are draining the English Exchequer. We keep being told that a Scot shouldn't be allowed to enter No 10, and even liberal David Cameron has talked seriously of denying Scottish MPs full voting rights in the UK parliament.
This is all presented as some kind of constitutional response to devolution, but what they are really talking about is a kind of dual citizenship, at least in
ecognition of the importance of and the need to celebrate and entrench a Britishness defined by shared values strong enough to overcome discordant claims of separatism and disintegration," he said. Brown is only too conscious of his own ethnicity, and has been wrapping himself in the Union Flag, backing Beckham and calling for citizenship to be promoted in schools.
Now, the Chancellor clearly has SNP separatism in mind. However, consciously or not, he has been contributing to the rising clamour south of the border for a more clearly-defined sense of English national identification. When David Goodhart calls for more citizenship and history lessons in schools, he isn't talking about Holyrood and Wallace.
The reassessment of citizenship, like Goodhart's progressive nationalism, is, of course, a response to the rise of the British National Party in the English local
itish National Party in the English local elections, and the prevalence of the cross of St George – which used to be a BNP emblem – on the football terraces. It is also a response to the crisis of multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism was the policy, promoted by many English local authorities after the Scarman Report into the Brixton riots in 1981, of encouraging ethnic and cultural diversity in cities. It seemed like common sense. However, when it emerged that some of the London bombers had been born and brought up in England, and yet appeared to regard themselves as living in a different and hostile country, people began to question whether multiculturalism wasn't leading to ethnic separatism.
Yet, when people attack multiculturalism, they are inclined to forget the UK has been a multicultural country since long before the Empire
ountry since long before the Empire Windrush began mass Commonwealth immigration. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland formed the original multicultural partnership. There is an obvious danger that Scots could become collateral damage if this confusion and anxiety about the disintegration of English civil society turns nasty. Some say it already has. There are laws against inciting racial hatred, but it remains quite acceptable for commentators in London to condemn the "bloody Scots", "the Scottish raj" and claim that Scots are draining the English Exchequer. We keep being told that a Scot shouldn't be allowed to enter No 10, and even liberal David Cameron has talked seriously of denying Scottish MPs full voting rights in the UK parliament.
This is all presented as some kind of constitutional response to devolution, but what they are really talking about is a kind of dual citizenship, at least in
parliament. Unless or until there is an independent Scotland, Westminster remains the UK parliament.
What is being proposed is an ethnic criteria being introduced into democratic representation which could very easily extend to citizenship itself. But there is another, more disturbing, question posed by Goodhart's analysis. He argues that the welfare state is only possible in socially and ethnically homogeneous states with intensely shared values. That's the difference, he believes, between Nordic states such as Sweden, which have a strong welfare state, and the United States of America, which doesn't. It could also be the difference between Scotland and England.
Welfare institutions such as the NHS, which are under challenge in England, do, indeed, remain popular in Scotland, where there is a much firmer
commitment to collective provision. Could it be that Scots remain social democratic because Scotland remains much more white than England? Are we more like Sweden because mass immigration stopped at the border? It's a disturbing thought.
If Goodhart is right – and I hope sincerely he isn't – then Scotland and England may be heading in
very different directions, essentially because of relative racial diversity. Either way, it would be ironic if Scots were to become alienated from the UK because England is unable to cope with the consequences of mass immigration. Progressive nationalism needs watching.
Read Iain Macwhirter also in the Sunday Herald
Our Common Wealth - renewing our democracy and reclaiming our future - Jose Borghino, New Matilda
It is initiatives like this that make me stand in awe of the vitality that is in Australia, Sue Ellson
http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=1598&HomepageID=143
Our Common Wealth – renewing our democracy and reclaiming our future
By: José Borghino
Wednesday 31 May 2006
New Matilda was launched in August 2004 to promote truth and accountability in government, provide independent media coverage and to help fill the vacuum that exists in policy development in Australia.
So far, New Matilda has concerned itself primarily with the first two of these goals — publishing the weekly Magazine and the Policy Portal that accompanies it.
With the launch on Tuesday 13 June of ‘Reclaiming Our Common Wealth — policies for a fair and sustainable future,’ we enter a new phase, in which filling the policy void becomes an important focus for New Matilda.
We believe that public policy should be built upon consistent principles and underpinned by coherent values. But in today’s Australia, this ideal is a long way from reality.
Public policy development in Australia is in a poor state. Policies tend to be ad hoc, inconsistent and thrown together in time for elections. They are informed not by values or principles, but by opinion polls, focus groups and talkback radio. Too often, this results in policies that are mired in short-termism and (content-free) managerialism.
At the moment, neither of our major political Parties has a vision for sustaining our environment over the long term, for investing in public goods like health and education, for increasing the diversity of our media sector, or for any kind of economic reform based on the notion that our economy is made up of humans rather than widgets.
This leaves those of us who have a different vision for Australia in a difficult position — where to direct our energies?
Good people will always work towards good outcomes. And sure enough, as governments replace social spending with tax cuts, we find charities picking up the slack. As our democratic rights are eroded, NGOs are forced to run Civics 101 classes for 20 million people at a time.
But this often forces us to take a defensive stance. A lot of time is spent saying ‘no’ — with no time or resources to explain what ‘yes’ might look like. And, in the absence of coherent, viable alternatives, it often appears that people simply want to turn back the clock. Nostalgia can be comforting but it's not a winning political strategy.
In all this, there is some good news.
One of the perils of being in power for a decade is that you run out of fresh ideas. Dog-whistle politics works in the short term but it doesn't cater to our need for hope, for trust, for something to believe in. The time is right for a change in direction.
"Beleaf in yourself"
Artwork by Gerhard Hillmann
Our Common Wealth is New Matilda’s response to the crisis in public policy development in Australia. It is the work of many in the New Matilda community, including the Board, the Policy Development Committee, our subscribers, contributors and others.
Our Common Wealth identifies five fundamental values: Freedom, Citizenship, Ethical Responsibility, Fairness, and Stewardship.
Freedom is the notion that we all have rights to the extent that they do not lessen the rights of others.
Citizenship acknowledges the complex network of social and political relationships we live in.
Ethical responsibility is the duty required of those responsible for our common wealth, our shared assets. It is the duty to act honestly.
Fairness is about the tradition of the ‘fair go’ — it is about equality of opportunity. We do not believe that it is inconsistent with economic progress; rather it is a precondition of that progress.
Stewardship speaks about the imperative for Australia to protect and invest in its bountiful stock of assets — physical, environmental, family, social, cultural and institutional capital. These, we refer to collectively as, Our Common Wealth.
Our Common Wealth explains where we currently fall short in expressing these values — the democratic and economic deficits that are growing with each year of cynical, managerial government.
In Our Common Wealth, we have also put forward strategies to remedy these deficits. You may agree with only some of them. We certainly don’t expect that all will agree with everything. It is meant to be a building block.
Building upon these five fundamental values, New Matilda, with the help of our readers and contributors, intends to produce policies in the fields of education, health, the media, the environment, and economics. We hope to influence policy makers at all levels, by providing well thought-out, economically viable, comprehensive blueprints for change. We want to make sure that neither of the major political Parties has an excuse for saying ‘there is no alternative.’
We hope you will be part of this.
For those of you who can attend the actual event, we invite you and your colleagues to the launch of Our Common Wealth. Please join the following speakers in calling for a change of direction in Australian public policy:
Wendy Harmer , as the MC,
Quentin Dempster , journalist
John Robertson , Unions NSW,
Virginia Young , The Wilderness Society,
Professor John Dwyer , UNSW,
Professor Denise Bradley , Vice Chancellor, UniSA,
and John Menadue AO, Chair, New Matilda,
Location : Jubilee Room, State Parliament House, Macquarie St, Sydney
Time : 12:00 – 1:00pm
Date : Tuesday, 13 June
RSVP by Thursday, 8 June:
p) 02 9211 1635
m) 0432 360 234
e) commonwealth@newmatilda.com
For those of you who can’t make it to the launch, we will release Our Common Wealth on-line in New Matilda after the launch and we will provide a forum on the site to gather your comments and suggestions.
Our Common Wealth is an exciting moment in the evolution of New Matilda. We welcome your participation and ask you to join us in making Our Common Wealth a great success.
José Borghino
Editor
Connected to the launch of Our Common Wealth, we will be making a small change to the publication cycle of the New Matilda. We will be sending out two separate emails each week: one for the Magazine and one for the Policy Portal. This split email strategy will allow us to better differentiate the two sides of the site, better direct our resources, and better cross-promote events and campaigns.
Before we make the change, however, we want to ask subscribers for your preferred option.
Consequently, this week’s Online Poll will be a closed one — only New Matilda subscribers will be able to vote.
I encourage you to go to the Poll and let us know which of the following options you would prefer:
Policy Portal email on Tuesday and Magazine email on Thursday
Policy Portal and Magazine as two separate emails, but both on Wednesday
Magazine on Wednesday and Policy Portal on Friday
http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=1598&HomepageID=143
Our Common Wealth – renewing our democracy and reclaiming our future
By: José Borghino
Wednesday 31 May 2006
New Matilda was launched in August 2004 to promote truth and accountability in government, provide independent media coverage and to help fill the vacuum that exists in policy development in Australia.
So far, New Matilda has concerned itself primarily with the first two of these goals — publishing the weekly Magazine and the Policy Portal that accompanies it.
With the launch on Tuesday 13 June of ‘Reclaiming Our Common Wealth — policies for a fair and sustainable future,’ we enter a new phase, in which filling the policy void becomes an important focus for New Matilda.
We believe that public policy should be built upon consistent principles and underpinned by coherent values. But in today’s Australia, this ideal is a long way from reality.
Public policy development in Australia is in a poor state. Policies tend to be ad hoc, inconsistent and thrown together in time for elections. They are informed not by values or principles, but by opinion polls, focus groups and talkback radio. Too often, this results in policies that are mired in short-termism and (content-free) managerialism.
At the moment, neither of our major political Parties has a vision for sustaining our environment over the long term, for investing in public goods like health and education, for increasing the diversity of our media sector, or for any kind of economic reform based on the notion that our economy is made up of humans rather than widgets.
This leaves those of us who have a different vision for Australia in a difficult position — where to direct our energies?
Good people will always work towards good outcomes. And sure enough, as governments replace social spending with tax cuts, we find charities picking up the slack. As our democratic rights are eroded, NGOs are forced to run Civics 101 classes for 20 million people at a time.
But this often forces us to take a defensive stance. A lot of time is spent saying ‘no’ — with no time or resources to explain what ‘yes’ might look like. And, in the absence of coherent, viable alternatives, it often appears that people simply want to turn back the clock. Nostalgia can be comforting but it's not a winning political strategy.
In all this, there is some good news.
One of the perils of being in power for a decade is that you run out of fresh ideas. Dog-whistle politics works in the short term but it doesn't cater to our need for hope, for trust, for something to believe in. The time is right for a change in direction.
"Beleaf in yourself"
Artwork by Gerhard Hillmann
Our Common Wealth is New Matilda’s response to the crisis in public policy development in Australia. It is the work of many in the New Matilda community, including the Board, the Policy Development Committee, our subscribers, contributors and others.
Our Common Wealth identifies five fundamental values: Freedom, Citizenship, Ethical Responsibility, Fairness, and Stewardship.
Freedom is the notion that we all have rights to the extent that they do not lessen the rights of others.
Citizenship acknowledges the complex network of social and political relationships we live in.
Ethical responsibility is the duty required of those responsible for our common wealth, our shared assets. It is the duty to act honestly.
Fairness is about the tradition of the ‘fair go’ — it is about equality of opportunity. We do not believe that it is inconsistent with economic progress; rather it is a precondition of that progress.
Stewardship speaks about the imperative for Australia to protect and invest in its bountiful stock of assets — physical, environmental, family, social, cultural and institutional capital. These, we refer to collectively as, Our Common Wealth.
Our Common Wealth explains where we currently fall short in expressing these values — the democratic and economic deficits that are growing with each year of cynical, managerial government.
In Our Common Wealth, we have also put forward strategies to remedy these deficits. You may agree with only some of them. We certainly don’t expect that all will agree with everything. It is meant to be a building block.
Building upon these five fundamental values, New Matilda, with the help of our readers and contributors, intends to produce policies in the fields of education, health, the media, the environment, and economics. We hope to influence policy makers at all levels, by providing well thought-out, economically viable, comprehensive blueprints for change. We want to make sure that neither of the major political Parties has an excuse for saying ‘there is no alternative.’
We hope you will be part of this.
For those of you who can attend the actual event, we invite you and your colleagues to the launch of Our Common Wealth. Please join the following speakers in calling for a change of direction in Australian public policy:
Wendy Harmer , as the MC,
Quentin Dempster , journalist
John Robertson , Unions NSW,
Virginia Young , The Wilderness Society,
Professor John Dwyer , UNSW,
Professor Denise Bradley , Vice Chancellor, UniSA,
and John Menadue AO, Chair, New Matilda,
Location : Jubilee Room, State Parliament House, Macquarie St, Sydney
Time : 12:00 – 1:00pm
Date : Tuesday, 13 June
RSVP by Thursday, 8 June:
p) 02 9211 1635
m) 0432 360 234
e) commonwealth@newmatilda.com
For those of you who can’t make it to the launch, we will release Our Common Wealth on-line in New Matilda after the launch and we will provide a forum on the site to gather your comments and suggestions.
Our Common Wealth is an exciting moment in the evolution of New Matilda. We welcome your participation and ask you to join us in making Our Common Wealth a great success.
José Borghino
Editor
Connected to the launch of Our Common Wealth, we will be making a small change to the publication cycle of the New Matilda. We will be sending out two separate emails each week: one for the Magazine and one for the Policy Portal. This split email strategy will allow us to better differentiate the two sides of the site, better direct our resources, and better cross-promote events and campaigns.
Before we make the change, however, we want to ask subscribers for your preferred option.
Consequently, this week’s Online Poll will be a closed one — only New Matilda subscribers will be able to vote.
I encourage you to go to the Poll and let us know which of the following options you would prefer:
Policy Portal email on Tuesday and Magazine email on Thursday
Policy Portal and Magazine as two separate emails, but both on Wednesday
Magazine on Wednesday and Policy Portal on Friday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
