Is Cronulla Australia’s Orewa?
Don Brash has this morning condemned a white supremacist group circulating posters around Wellington’s more upmarket suburbs that call for race riots, a la Australia. The good doctor calls the campaign by The White Crusaders of the Racial Holy War “anti-Kiwi”.
What to think about such a move? Pleased that a major political figure is condemning such nastiness and will hopefully cut away any credibility the group might have in some quarters?
Or annoyed that the person who has done more than anyone to make racism respectable in this country is now cynically trying to distance himself from the inevitable downstream effect of his political tactics?
But I think I might choose, at least until events prove me wrong (I hope they don’t), to be optimistic.
You see, it may be that when comparing events that have thrust race relations to the forefront of the political agenda, Cronulla is Australia’s Orewa. If it is, then happily my country is more civilised than the one across the Tasman.
For as unpleasant as Brash and Peters’ tactics have been, at least the racist backlash here has, so far, been largely contained within the political process. Certainly when the National Front tried to play on it last year, the most notable result was an only mildly violent, entirely farcical, though nevertheless unpleasant, scuffle near Parliament.
Whereas in Australia, they’ve gone fairly directly to huge and serious race riots.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe we’re behind Oz in the process and will reach the riot point sometime. But I reckon we’re ahead of them and are working our way, painfully and incrementally, through the fears, anger and concerns that underlie this whole conflict.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
We shouldn’t be to smug. There two reasons New Zealanders don’t say what the Aussie yobbos have been saying:
1/ Because if you did so within earshot of any Maori/P.l. you would get your head smacked in.
2/ Those kiwis who really really have a racist bee in their bonnet moved to Queensland in the 1990’s.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Frog:
Sorry to be short-tempered on such a lovely day, but Cronulla and Orewa are both seaside hamlets with rather nice beaches. Period. I know it’s also rather easy to miss smugly squatting on Skull Island, but over the last week four million Sydneysiders - of all races, creeds, genders, sexual orientations, political ideologies and socio-economic backgrounds - went about their lives, as opposed to rioting in the streets. It’s not a perfect place, but New Zealand isn’t either.
And Don Brash condemned the actions of The White Crusaders of the Racial Holy War.because they should have been condemned. I think the only person whose “cynicism” - and cheap guilt-by-association innuendo - I choose to be annoyed by is yours.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
I think us liberals really need to stop labeling Don Brash and his views racist, just as conservatives need to stop using the words labelling everything liberals do as political corectness, boths terms prevent debate on issues that are important, for fear of being labeled.
While I disagree with Don Brash, he, in my opinion, isn’t racist, he is merely expressing his views on how to deal with racial issues, just as our views aren’t politically correct but merely trying to give all people equal human rights.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Good God. Putting aside the repeated assertion that supporting equal citizenship is racist, I can’t believe you compare a speech to a rotary club with 5,000 rioting thugs.
I love the moral superiority that because you think teh right are racist, you then think they can’t condemn neo-nazis.
Very rich coming from the people who defend Keith Locke’s writings on Cambodia and Afghanistan.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
DPF beats me to it! Don Brash calls for one law for all and is branded a racist by the real racists who have traded on Maori misery for years and kept them addicted to welfare and state dependency. As the man is married to an Asian woman ( as is Rodney Hide) how do the left come to the conclusion that he’s a pro white fanatic? I would submit that the most virilent racists in this country are to be found on the left where the uneducated and the lower iq’s are to be found. If you took a survey of the rioters in Cronulla Im willing to bet the overwhelming majority would be pro labour, pro union, something for nothing morons who think they have a right to jobs that are off limits to darkies.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Craig, you and I both know that the only reason Don Brash criticised those two sad sods is because he thought he might get in the media over it. He had never heard of them before and still has no clue who they are or how (if) they are organised.
If this needed condemning, how about those white supremacists who were recently jailed for firing on people (with an air rifle - sad sods, as I’ve said). Oh, wait, not much media in that…
Too much cynicism is a bad thing. Wanting to believe that Brash was acting only with the purest of motives is also a bad thing.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Brash represents the forces who want all power to employers and corporations and everything else to be subservient to the greed factor. That’s why him banging on about human rights is abit hard to swallow.
The underlying reason behind the whateva happened in Oz, how much it has been hyped i don’t know, is that working class people are frustrated because the corporate squeeze has gotten really tight and there is no opposition as we are talking about the land of the RUpurt Murdock media state.
so ding dong…anyone home?
December 15th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
I’d like to make the distinction that Brash isn’t racist. He provides an excuse to be racist, a facade of legitimacy with real complaints that need to be adressed… but because of the way he promotes those issues, he encourages racism.
Whether it is conscious or not is another story.
From what I’ve heard of the man, I’d have to say I can’t imagine him knowing the consequences of his actions in this case.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Good on Brash for condemning racism. But I do wish he wouldn’t say it’s ‘anti-kiwi’. It’s both bullshit and divisive. Racism is just wrong, whether it’s anti-kiwi or not. Many kiwis are racists, and there’s nothing good about it. These ‘appeals to the mainstream’ smack of opportunism rather than principle.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Frog, can I safely assume ‘bullshit’ is one of your block rules? You’re making me feel like Germaine Greer.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Pip:
What do you mean press releases are distributed to the press gallery in the hope that journalists will use them? Outrageous!
What I find annoying is your rather grotesque assertion that he doesn’t mean a word of it… Classy - ever considered that these folks might also be rather keep on putting the bash on his wife and son, because The White Crusaders of the Racial Holy War don’t sound like they’d be too hot on inter-racial marriages and mongrel children.
Evan:
Your tin foil hat needs another layer, seriously.
Ari:
Humm… your logic is interesting, Captain. I guess every time the Greens put out a PR criticising the human rights record of China or Zimbabwe, then it’s not actually racist but might just provide an *excuse* to be hostile to Asians or blacks. And it’s a little spooky to see some of the folks on the isolationist far-right who’d agree with the Greens’ opposition to trade liberalisation 100% - xenophobic by innuendo and association!
December 15th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Like John Howardd and the French, Don Brash used the language of equality to deny the truth of race difference. Just because large numbers of New Zealanders were numb-skull enough to succumb to such Orwellian tactics doesn’t change the fact that you can’t deal with race issues by stripping discourse of meaning via manipulation of language.
A lie is a lie.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
I never asserted that Brash didn’t mean a word of it. Nor do I believe it. I just disagree with your overly starry eyed, “he did it because it’s the right thing to do” stance. Completely misrepresenting someone’s statement (probably deliberately, becasue you are not stupid) is very classy, cap’n.
I agree that Evan’s tin hat isn’t nearly as many layered as James’.
On Ari’s logic, I agree that there are people who agree with some aspects of the Greens’ positions who I would prefer to have no association with at all. The question you have to ask yourself though, is would they be more likely to vote for the Greens’ or National after the race and trade debates in New Zealand up to the last election. And why?
December 15th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
OK, thought this one would get a quick and heated response :).
I couched this whole post in ifs and mays cos I wanted to pose questions and compare and contrast. Note that I put the “pleased that” point first.
To clarify.
1/ I DO NOT think (and I DID NOT say above) that Don Brash is *a racist*, in the sense that the “rioting thugs”, on both sides, in Oz and the local White Crusaders of the doo dah certainly are.
2/ But I do think that some of Brash’s stated views and actions have racist consequences that he should be smart enough to recognise and want to avoid. And that by airing them from the soapbox of the National Party leadership, he has made racism more respectable, which in turn has allowed certain creatures to feel safe crawling out from under their rocks into the light of day.
3/ My closing point on “the fears, anger and concerns that underlie this whole conflict” (on both sides of the debate and the Tasman) was made to acknowledge that they do exist and can’t simply be dismissed. Why do white people feel so alienated that they turn on brown people with whom they actually have common cause? Whose interests does such division serve? Don Brash did hook into a not unreasonable unease in the general populace, but he then directed it away from its actual causes, which are rooted in class rather than race.
4/ My overall point is that, even tho’ I don’t like the racism I see flowing from Orewa, at least its all happening without serious violence. That could either mean we’ve avoided riots or we haven’t reached that stage yet, I hope the former.
Craig: of course most Sydneysiders spent the weekend peacefully, but lets hope nevertheless that riots of this scale don’t become so run-of-the-mill that they don’t prompt much media coverage and public debate any more.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Ben: Bull is fine, its sh*t that the system picks up
December 15th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
http://thorndon.blogspot.com/2005/12/titles-should-be-just-as-accurate -as.html
December 15th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
The best part of this post is the first sentence in the last paragraph. Except you should change the word “maybe” to “I Know”
If this post is reflective of Green thinking, then you dont deserve to have any elected MPs.
Oh thats right, you dont.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Dave, have you got any evidence that we’re behind the race debate process in relation to Australia and will reach the riot stage at some point? And evidence that Frog shares this knowledge? If not, why do you think Frog should change ‘maybe’ to ‘I know’? at the beginning of the last paragraph?
God, wilful misreading can be annoying.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
Tinhat talk is a intelligent way to ignore and dismiss opinions that arn’t refelcted in mainstream corporate media aye?
Why be here in the first place, when you have virtually all other media sources to reflect the all powerful corporate news angle that makes you feel so superior being a mouthpiece of?
December 15th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
Even:
No “tin-foil hat wearer” is how I dismiss incoherent cant filtered through a paranoid worldview - and it’s applied on a thoroughly bipartisan basis. Call me a corporate tool if you like (which seems a useful way to dismiss unpopular POVs in this neck of the virtual woods), but perhaps you’d like to spell out exactly what Rupert Murdoch has to do with this - small words, in coherently organised and punctuated sentences. And, FWIW, I thought the social geography of Sydney meant the white “working classes” - with or without the malignant influence of News Corp mind control - couldn’t afford to live in Cronulla or Maroubra anymore than the “Lebs”?
December 15th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
Paranoid worldview!!!!
So anything that goes against what corporate media tells you everyday/night and criticises unregulated greed, opins that it is destroying communities, environments and quality of life is paranoid?
Do you really believe Corporations get together and say wouldn’t it be of great benefit to the community/public if we did this and this etc?
Or would they get together and say o.k, we can increase our revenue and returns/sales by doing this to employees or getting access to this part of the environment or not having to worry about such and such health standards etc
Anyway if u think there’s no relationship between what goes on in Australia and Rupert Murdock, the man Tony Blair consults ova foreign policy then good for you, you’ll get no argument from main stream corporate media. WHich of course being on their side gives you the chance to dismiss things that stand in their way and make you feel like u r on the winning side, since that is the position constantly reinforced through the media. Goose-step, goose-step..
December 15th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
The longer the media and PC brigade carry on assuming that racism and bad behaviour is something only white people can do, the deeper and more entrenched the issues will become on the streets.
December 15th, 2005 at 9:07 pm
The Greens have a fantastic record when it comes to bigotry.
Racism: Reject the concept of “one law for all”.
Sexism: Insist new co-leader must be a man, even if a woman would do a better job. Also, support policies like paid parental leave that make it harder for women to find employment.
Xenophobia: A buy kiwi-made campaign that tells us that you should avoid goods made by dirty furrinners.
Frogs in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones.
December 15th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
even,
(Percy scratches head)
If the Right Wing Corporate Media(TM) has such control over us as you and Noam Chomsky seem to think, why don’t we have an Act party majority government right now?
December 15th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
Because the people are not naturally right-wing.
However we do have a right-wing Labour government, so maybe that is evidence of the corporate media, ie the political landscape has shifted right,
evidence for this, the political compass page on the UK, where they rated New Labour 2005 as more right wing than pre-Thatcher conservatives.
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.php
December 15th, 2005 at 10:45 pm
I think Chomsky would agree, stuey. He’s never had any time for the Democratic party either, and only came out batting for them this time for the first time, because he was genuinely scared of what Bush is capable of. He wasn’t saying the Democrats aren’t left wing, just that they’re not radical nutters, by far the lesser of two evils. He’d feel similarly about Labour, I’m sure. He sure does about the British Labour, that is obvious.
December 15th, 2005 at 10:45 pm
And Frog dodges the elephant in the room:
Read around a little and it’s possible to comprehend that one of the ‘root causes’ of the Cronulla ding-dong has been a well-meaning but lopsided approach to policing various harrassments over very many years.
And a lot of said harrassment is by Muslim youths, taunting and threatening ’skippy’ chicks (skippy as in .. the bush kangaroo - Aussies). Add alcohol, a well-developed tribal gang structure, testosterone-filled males of all persuasions, a very long history of turf defence, SMS based organising and a really really hot day.
I personally don’t think NZ has much chance of this sort of thing: as for one thing we don’t have entire suburbs full of self-marginalised young men with value systems wildly incompatible with traditional civic virtues.
But I don’t think that taking cheap shots in this blog at local pollies and adopting the peg-over-nose posture, is entirely appropriate either.
And when you consider that a good deal of the core, longterm harrassment in Cronulla (and elsewhere) is directed against women, I would have thought that a little more attention to this aspect would be warranted.
Here’s hoping (but not holding my breath…).
December 15th, 2005 at 11:49 pm
Stuey said “Because the people are not naturally right-wing”
Good call. If they were, those at the top who are constantly trying to get more and more and guard what they’ve got, wouldn’t need to own and have their viewpoint forced on the rest of the population ad naseum via the media.
It’s the same old story played out through history, whether it be the inquisition or whateva. For people to argue that those at the top have suddenly dropped this fortress mentality against any challenges is absurd.
The majority of people would rather help each other out than slit each others throat; these are the principles that we evolved on and which made us strong; now we are weak and polluting the planet beyond repair with a quality of life i would trade anyday of the week for that lived by olda civilisations more in tune with nature’s laws.
December 16th, 2005 at 1:36 am
Evan:
Yes, I use the word ‘paranoid’ quite deliberately because you seem to be exhibiting all the pathologies so expertly deliniated by (leftist) historian Richard Hofstadter in his classic essay ‘The Paranoid Style in American Politics’:
“As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated—if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.
The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).”
Now if you’d excuse me, Rupert is sending coded instruction through my fillings and I must obey like a good corporate whore-bot.
December 16th, 2005 at 1:40 am
FWIW, when Hofstadter wrote that essay in 1963 he considered the ‘paranoid style’ of politics as a peculiar manifestation of the far-right. I’ll leave gentle readers to determine of the passage of forty years hasn’t seen it spread a little wider.
December 16th, 2005 at 6:26 am
Even: Natures’ laws? You mean eat or be eaten? Kill or be killed? Nature doesn’t set laws, except the “laws of physics” in terms of reality - human beings need to survive, and to survive they must apply their minds to their environment to acquire shelter, food, water, defence against other animals and each other, warmth and knowledge about what is harmful and what is not.
I don’t think anyone can argue that fundamentally, this is what being human requires- most animals have instinct, human beings must apply reason to survive, otherwise they perish.
December 16th, 2005 at 10:20 am
libertyscott says: Natures’ laws? You mean eat or be eaten? Kill or be killed?
Nope, i meant living in an unrepressive way with each other and having great respect for the environmental systems that sustain your society-u know, doing the things that we evolved doing making us strong and happy.
I’m sorry you find this so threatening but this is a green board!
December 16th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
So the point made in the original blog was not that Don Brash was a racist but that both Orewa and Cronulla have bought race relations into the mainstream media. The real challenge for the Kiwi and Aussie media is whether they can move beyond a burst of superficial cliches, then a series of “shock, horror, probe” and finally a deathly silence based on “its old news”. None of these will do much to advance public consciousness.
As to racism, what I find odd about the right is that they have such trouble thinking beyond geographically defined monarchies as the natural system of Government.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi in my view defines a kind of federastic agreement between Maori and the Crown. The Crown gets to make laws for everyone but Maori have certain rights guaranteed to them. Nothing new in that - its a lot like States rights in Australia or the US. The difference is that Maori and Pakeha are geographically intermingled. But when Don Brash says one law for all he is not so much wrong as willfully incomplete - that is only one of three articles of the Treaty on which our nation was founded.
Any if anyone starts with the “150 years ago” line, I’ll take that more seriously when people start saying that all property becomes common property after a fixed period. Imagine the outcry if people started saying “oh well the title deed to your house is 150 years old so it doesn’t count any more”. Lots of our basic rights have their origins in documents many hundreds of years old - their intepretation might have evolved but they haven’t been repudiated and they aren’t irrelevant.
December 16th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
This is slight tangent but as a quick here and now of corporate media happening all the time, here is a link to a blog with an article on a journalist who has actually been in Iraq.
http://www.bradblog.com/
Interview with Robert Fisk on Iraq war.
With comments like “There are “death squads on all sides” in Iraq.
“We’re finished. The project is over. We can have as many referendums and constitutions as we like. Iraq is outside all government and Western control now with the exception of little fortresses in the green zone. And even there, mortars drop.”
“Hotel Journalists” report from the hotel room because of dangers in Iraq. Government claims are usually reported as fact because journalists are not able to verify them. Journalists often fail to tell their viewers that the “facts” have not been verified.
I put this as an illustration of where things are at, cause i noticed on xtra msn home page the news thread “delighted iraqis flock to vote” and “but the joy and determination of Iraqi voters emerging from dictatorship was still evident.” etc etc
Just another day in the life…
December 16th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
I think jgg has been the closest to where I stand on this, Thanks.
December 16th, 2005 at 7:17 pm
Humm… your logic is interesting, Captain. I guess every time the Greens put out a PR criticising the human rights record of China or Zimbabwe, then it’s not actually racist but might just provide an *excuse* to be hostile to Asians or blacks. And it’s a little spooky to see some of the folks on the isolationist far-right who’d agree with the Greens’ opposition to trade liberalisation 100% - xenophobic by innuendo and association!
The distinction I would like to make is that Brash has been pretty much maligning Maori culture and involvement in governance in his political campaign, and has put an egalitarian spin on it. Those of us who know about fighting discrimination and prejudice know that you have to do it by trusting one another, by giving and providing good will. Accusing people of priveledge doesn’t do that.
Whether the Green Party does value the culture and self-determination of China. It is for precisely that reason that they find it so important that their human rights conditions improve, and that we interfere in that regard to facilitate that improvement. The distinction underlying the difference is that Brash doesn’t really seem to care about race. That is still a harmful attitude that promotes racism in other people. The Green Party seems to me to care about all races equally as partners. That is a positive attitude that can influence others in a better direction. You can see this in how they respond to people’s reactions to their policies- Brash talks about making people held accountable for priveledge. That’s an avenging reaction which encourages hate, even if he himself doesn’t feel it. Wheras the Green MPs have always seemed to me to show how much they care about the people involved. All their comments on race have seemed inclusionary and welcoming to me. Of course, I admit that I certainly haven’t been through every single thing all of them have said
As for opposing trade liberalisation- The Green Party doesn’t oppose trade liberalisation of itself, from my understanding of it. They oppose it when its costs are greater than its benefits- for example, when subsidised fuels and transport means we are losing out on money by shipping things, when people are not given the proper information to choose products that they really desire, (although technically, giving more information IS trade liberalisation, so in that sense the party supports it) or when an open market harms our social values. (eg. products made using nuclear power might be said to fall under this category) It supports “fair trade”, which is liberalisation of trade held to a higher standard, where traditionally non-economic values like social justice, economic damage, and other such factors are controlled either by the government or by the market, provided it has proven it can effectively do so.
December 17th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
Let’s face it frog. You “couched this whole post in ifs and mays cos I wanted to pose questions and compare and contrast” for several reasons. They are as follows:
1) You actually believe the ‘ifs’ and ‘mays’, but you’re too scared to say that. Why? Well, firstly because you do not want to equate your personal view with those of the Greens. You’re scared the media will latch on to something you say and turn it into the Greens position - this is your way of distancing the blog. This in turn has the effect of diminishing the usefulness of this blog.
2) You don’t actually want to argue with people because you realise your are both not articulate enough to argue, and also personally hold views that border on the indefensible. Thus your fall back is ‘may’ or ‘if’ or, as in other posts, ‘for entertainment purposes’.
3) You think it noble and clever to simply leave the unsaid to be inferred, because you do not think that polutics should be about saying what you believe and doing what you say.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:50 am
Pure ad-froginem, Smithy…
do you have anything substantive to say?
December 18th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Adam, keep in mind that one can make similar criticism of your own post in the reverse faction, although I personally am not yet willing to pass judgement on you, as I don’t know you well enough :p
“You’re actually second-guessing Frog’s post, but are too angry to admit it.”
“You want to argue with people just for the point of arguing, and aren’t trying to make any progress or compromise with them at all, because views opposed to yours are ‘indefensible’.”
“You think it clever to make inferences that aren’t there.”
It’s a matter of how you like your journalism. I like mine with opinions and uncertainties clearly marked as such, so I know what I should likely trust and what I need to make my own calls on. The ‘ifs’ and ‘mays’ definately help here.
I think you could’ve done with being a bit less standoffish in your post, (phrases like “let’s face it”, “be a man”, “do the right thing” are all ways of being confrontational while trying to look like you’re not. I personally don’t appreciate their use) and while I don’t agree with you, you can certainly say and think what you like about Frog’s posting habits.
December 18th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Australian police state.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/stat-n03.shtml
Is does seem a funny coincidence that this riot has happened when a whole lot of radical new powers are being given to their police and armed forces so they can basically trample all ova any individual, or groups of individuals, rights.
Good old corporate fascism on the march.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:04 am
DPF says “I can’t believe you compare a speech to a rotary club with 5,000 rioting thugs.”
Um, but isn’t that the point? That NZ’s not really got a problem the way that Oz really does have a problem?