Qohel

Make a Difference

Tag: racism

Trump, #nevertrump and the Future of US Politics

July 21, 2016 / / 0 Comments

What is it about Trump that some conservatives find so distressing?

You’d expect progressives to be disturbed, of course, even before you get to policies. Trump is a manly, no nonsense, successful businessman. When you do consider policies, the nightmare deepens. He is unashamedly proud of his country, and has made it clear that when it comes to foreign policy and trade, he intends to put its interests first. He is pro-life, and supports police and the military. He supports Israel, and Israel’s right to defend itself.  He does not buy into currently popular (and in some circles mandatory) issues like global warming and multi-culturalism.

A horror story for progressives. But why are some conservatives also lining up under the #nevertrump banner? Only a few percent; not enough to influence the outcome of the Republican Convention. But a few percent of conservatives who refuse to vote, or vote for a third party candidate, may be all it takes to get Hillary Clinton over the line and into the White House.

First in the litany of Trump’s faults is this: He’s a fascist! The word fascist comes from Latin fasces, a bundle of rods tied together, sometimes with a protruding axe blade. In Roman times it was symbol of magisterial authority. The meaning is that the state is stronger when all its members think and act in concert. Fascism subsumes the interests of individuals and families to the perceived needs of the state, in the belief that citizens are eventually better off if everyone serves the same purposes and works towards the same objectives.

Explaining in detail why this is wrong and does not work would take a much longer essay than this. The question for now is, “Is this the position that Donald Trump espouses?” Hardly. Trump’s central policy positions are small, low-tax, non-interventionist government, free speech, and individual and family rights. The exact opposite of an authoritarian, all-encompassing central government.

Well, then, he’s a racist! Racism is not intrinsic to fascism, although the two are often conflated. Is Trump a racist? No one has been able to point to specific instances where Trump has abused or disadvantaged anyone on the basis of race. He has been publicly supported by black and Hispanic staff and former staff, by black pastors and business people, by immigrants of a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, many of whom who share his concern over illegal immigration. It is assumed in some circles that if you believe illegal immigration is a problem, you must do so on the basis of race, because you are xenophobic. Showing that to be untrue is as easy as going to Youtube and looking for Hispanics for Trump.

Well then, he is an islamophobe! Here, as others have pointed out, it isn’t a phobia if there is genuinely something to fear. Since September 2001 over 28,000 terror attacks have been made on civilians specifically in the name of Allah and Muhammad. In the name of all other religions? About one tenth of one percent of that figure. ISIS, and before ISIS Al Qaeda, have called on all muslims everywhere to undertake random murders of civilian populations in non-muslim countries. Very few will take up that call. But very few will speak out against those who do, or explain how the Quran’s command to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” is to be set aside while at the same time maintaining the Quran’s commands apply for all time to all muslims everywhere. There is sufficient reason to be concerned, despite the French Prime Minister’s pronouncement after Nice that we must get used to living with terror, or Waleed Aly’s claim after the Boston bombing that terrorism is not an existential threat, merely an irritant. How to deal with Islamic terror is another question, but recognising that it is a problem is a good first step, and taking ordinary people’s fears about it seriously is a good second step.

Well, then, Trump is a sexist! This coming from the Clinton camp is, like, um, really? Are there no mirrors where you live? Coming from conservatives it is even more baffling. In an interview published in The Sunday Times on July 3rd, Trump’s daughter Ivanka described her father as having lived feminism:

“He always told me and showed me that I could do anything I set my mind to if I married vision and passion with work ethic. He’s also surrounded me with strong female role models who have done just that since I was a little girl. People talk about gender equality. He has lived it. He has employed women at the highest levels of the Trump organisation for decades.” Opposed to this is Trump’s admission that he finds attractive women attractive. Of course this is unspeakable bastardry in modern progressivism, but from conservatives it sounds more like desperation to find something, anything, on which to base their disapproval.

In addition, Trump makes the fatal error of actually treating women and men equally. In the world of gender equality, this is as big a blunder as finding women attractive. In business and political debate, Trump appears not to notice the gender of a competitor. For example, he noted that Carly Fiorina was so unattractive it was unlikely anyone would vote for her. In fact, pretty much no one did. If he had said this about Ted Cruz or John Kasich no one would have batted a butt hair, let alone an eyelid. But just as equality in race means treating people differently on the basis of their race, so gender equality means treating people differently on the basis of their gender. You mustn’t say mean things about women!

Unless of course, you are a progressive, and a woman has said something that is outside the progressive agenda. Then all the rules cease immediately. So, for example, when Australian media personality Sonia Kruger suggested a temporary ban on muslim immigration, she got this (and hundreds of others) from compassionate inclusive Twitter persons: “You useless f%#king c&^t. The reason you spew this sh#t is cause your mouth is always full of c*%k.” Or this from a person deeply concerned about the impact of racism, to Rita Panahi, an Iranian born Australian, after she defended Sonia: “Ohh right curry muncher … say racist things about every person in a religion then say pay a visious price the things that mole said was visious but you won’t say that will you curry muncher.” Melania Trump has been described by a supporter of open borders as “a stupid bitch with a dumb accent.” A desire to welcome immigrants and ensure they are treated fairly is demonstrated here by insulting a successful immigrant woman who speaks four languages for her “dumb accent.”

Having exhausted all of the above, #nevertrump will eventually come out with the claim that Trump is stupid and cannot string a coherent sentence together. One has to step back in wonder at this argument. An unintelligent person who is not able to communicate built up an initial investment of $1 million into a multi-billion dollar real-estate and entertainment business. Nope. Just nope.  Trump is an entertainer himself. He communicates his vision clearly and effectively, and without the aid of a teleprompter. Watching his question and answer sessions at rallies you see a man who listens intently, conveys his interest to the questioner, and responds, generally, with a thoughtful and straightforward reply. Generally? Yes. Trump sometimes trips over his words. He sometimes responds or comments in ways that might have been more delicately put, or required more time and detail to explain. It is very easy to put together a video of such moments and portray him as a mindless bumbler. But doing so says little about Trump, and a great deal about the agenda of the video maker. One of the qualities ordinary people like in Trump is that he is not rehearsed. He does not give the impression of saying what he thinks will win approval. He doesn’t need to.

Finally, “He’s not a conservative!” Yes, he is. There is not a single Trump policy position that does not fit under the very wide umbrella of freedom-loving, free-market conservatism. It is certainly possible to disagree about some aspect of social policy, or trade, for example. But any position taken in these discussions is a long way from large government socialism. At best, #nevertrump can claim that Trump’s opinions now are not what they were twenty years ago. No intelligent person’s opinions are what they were twenty years ago. Values clarify as one gets older. Practical experience and knowledge of the world is gained. The world changes, problems and issues change, and ways of dealing with them change. There would be much more reason for concern if Trump’s opinions had not changed with changing times.

I wrote six months ago that the only way the Republican Party could lose the election would be to nominate Trump. He was not my preferred candidate. But he received more votes in the Primaries than any other Republican candidate ever. Men and women who have never voted before turned out to vote for Trump. A recent survey of bellwether counties in a bellwether state (Florida) showed Trump leading in every county. Some of team #nevertrump claim it is not a binary contest between Trump and Clinton Mk II. There are, they say, other options. Maybe in some parallel universe, but here in the real world the next President of the United States will either be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. At this point, continuing to undermine Trump and the Republican campaign is effectively lobbying for Clinton.

Anita Heiss Again

April 15, 2012 / / 1 Comment

This will be my last post on this subject.

I have not read Anita Heiss’s book Am I Black Enough For You?, so I cannot comment on its literary merits.

But there seems to be to be a very clear difference between those who have left negative reviews on its Amazon page, and those who have left positive reviews.

It is not clear that the writers of the negative reviews have all read the book. Some are concerned about the quality of the writing, others about politics, the hypocrisy of the title, the shutting down of any response to Anita Heiss and her arguments. Some are quite forceful. A very few contain personal criticism of Anita or other Amazon reviewers. Even fewer could be considered mildly racist, in that they appear to make assumptions about aboriginal people as a whole. But in general, the negative reviews are well-written, thoughtful, and about the book.

The five and four star reviews are not. There is very little comment about the book and its merits, and rather more discussion of what a vile person Andrew Bolt is, and how the controversy is all his fault, and anyone who wants to ask the same questions he did must be one of his trolls and a racist.

I have copied below one review and the comments which followed. They seem to me to summarise the methods of both sides of the debate.

For more, see my earlier posts on Andrew Bolt’s trial, and Anita Heiss’s book.

Miriam Dorset

Five Star Reviews Are Politically Motivated

It is simply impossible that anyone who has read this book could give it five stars, or even four. This is the second of Heiss’s books I have read. The other was Manhattan Dreaming. On the Kindle page for that book she is described as the “best-selling author of Not Meeting Mr Right and Avoiding Mr Right.” But look at the sales figures for her books. Manhattan Dreaming is ranked 258,720th. In other words, two of Heiss’s friends have read it, and me. She writes at the same level as a moderately talented high school student. Her writing style is awkward and her plots are predictable. If she were male you’d call them puerile. I didn’t review Manhattan Dreaming because when I got to the end of it I had already given it far more time than it deserved. I could not finish “Am I Black Enough for You?” It is a trivial, self-obsessed book. The book makes it clear that Heiss, not mainstream Australia, is obsessed with notions of identity.

In 2010 Heiss was awarded $90,000 by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board to produce two non-fiction books – a collection of essays and a memoir. She has no reputation as an essayist. Am I Black Enough For You? is the memoir. On the Random House website she describes the hardships she had to endure while living in Paris at tax payers’ expense:

1. WEIGHT GAIN: I had to eat an embarrassing amount of bread and cheese, macaroons, croissants and chocolate – so I could actually write about it! This meant I had to put on weight for my job.

2. SORE FEET: Paris is a city for walking. Strolling down the Champs-Elysees eyeing all the designers stores and cafes is hard on the feet, trust me, I know, I did it quite a bit! 3. FLIRTING WITH STRANGERS: Now, let me preface this by saying, I was in character! Anita Heiss would never flirt with strangers, but for the purpose of `research’ I did what needed to be done for my craft. If you are serious about your writing, you will too!

Ms Heiss has made her race a matter of public interest, because she has claimed awards and benefits on the basis of race. The public is entitled to ask whether money given in grants, awards or benefits is going to the people for whom it was intended. She, and now the Australian ABC and her publishers, Random House, have attempted to shut down any discussion of this with which she does not agree. If it were not for this controversy, I suspect this book, like her others, would be languishing at 250,000th on Kindle, and in remainder bins at any shop silly enough to have bought it.

randr says: Great review. I also have read a couple of Heiss’s books, out of curiosity only as the genre of the books she writes are not to my taste. Regardless of any other issues she is a poor writer who I suspect would not normally get a look in by any publishing company. I’m sure she has valid points to make but is not skilled or imaginative enough to do herself justice. In many ways it’s a shame that she has generated all this response as her writing doesn’t warrant it.

Simon Santoro says: It is pretty clear that anyone who answers Anita’s question the wrong way, or even wonders about whether she is entitled to the benefits she claims, is going to be labelled racist scum or worse, or described as a hater or a blind Bolter. Silly. If there are issues here – and Anita has raised them in her book’s title – why not have a sensible exchange of views without calling people names?

The real point for potential buyers is simply that this is a dud book – boring, predictable, narcissistic.

Matthew says: Simon, if you have an opinion that is informed by facts and doesn’t resort to stereotypes and generalisation, then let’s hear it.

The problem with so many of the comments here are that they’re written by people who (a) have never read the original articles (eg people who claim they just “asked questions” or “didn’t attack anybody” or refuse to accept that there were stunning inaccuracies), (b) don’t understand (or haven’t even looked at) the case and judgement against bolt (eg people who think the judge inferred things that weren’t in the articles, or that it was all subjective or that he was only found guilty because he got irrelevant things wrong or because he was rude – all false), (c) think that there are now “illegal topics” or “illegal opinions” in australia (there aren’t – not only are mainstream newspapers – including The Oz – talking about them, the judge specifically said that he wasn’t setting a precedent to prevent discussion about anything), (d) think that andrew bolt has been “silenced” in some way (god forbid!), (e) think that he has been treated unfairly because the plaintiffs wouldn’t have won a defamation suit and took the soft option (almost certainly not true, not at all) or (f) actually believe the inferences made in those articles in the first place (a very misinformed decision).

So we get angry remarks based on misinformation by people who don’t know any of the facts of the stories, the case, the law or the truth behind the articles. They make angry generalisations that try to pin blame for serious problems on a selection of aboriginal people who – purely on the basis of skin colour and what they might happen to believe about their life story – are undeserving. And these are people whom practically nobody here would have even HEARD of had they not featured in a series of bogus articles and decided not to take the abuse lying down.

So sure, if you think you’re not one of those people, and you think you’ve got the bases covered, then let’s hear it. I promise not to call you racist

Simon Santoro says: Matthew you seem to have taken up a position as permanent Amazon commenter. I don’t have that much time. I did read Bolt’s blog posts, I followed the trial with interest, and read articles from both sides of politics afterwards. I think I am reasonably well informed on the issues. I am not quite sure why you make the assumption that anyone who sees things differently from you must be either ignorant, an idiot or a racist. The simple point is that regardless of the politics, this is a tedious, self-righteous and self-obsessed book.

Mal says: That’s right folks, Miriam Dorset must be right, because all those 1 star reviews couldn’t possibly be politically motivated could they? No, of course not. Especially since they rapidly went up after a certain Mr Andrew Bolt made an issue of it on his blog. Humbug! By the way, Miriam, you and a load of others around here obviously don’t understand that free speech generally doesn’t apply to the comment pages of corporate bodies. If it did, you and I would have blogs and columns and paychecks alongside Andrew Bolt. As to this “Ms Heiss has made her race a matter of public interest, because the public is entitled to ask whether money given in grants, awards or benefits is going to the people for whom it was intended.” – No, Miriam, Mr Bolt made it an issue by not properly researching his original articles (all of which can be read), getting a judgement against him for breaching the Racial Vilification Act, and now urging his witless followers in the most craven fashion to do his bidding for him. Finally I see that you are following the herd instinct her by attacking the person rather than reading the book.

Mal says: Stop being such a troll, Simon. In this post you are quite happily involved in the very abuse you are saying others are engaged in. And you do it in such a sneaky nasty way, don’t you. All this oleaginous concern about calling people names and then your last little piece of invective.

Simon Santoro says: I have read the book. I consider it to be poorly written and of little value. How is saying so abusive? There is a difference between discussion and criticism of a book – that is what these forums are for – and hurling abuse at people who do not share your view.

Mal says: Yes and you obviously followed his coded instruction to get on here and condemn the book, Mr Troll.

Miriam Dorset says: I am sorry my review has caused so much angst.

I wanted to make two points which seemed uncontroversial to me.

First, that by any normal measure, this is not a good book, either in insights or literary merit. This cannot be contentious for anyone who has actually read the book.

Second, when taxpayers fund special benefits or awards for people of a particular race, height, hair colour or whatever, they entitled to ask whether those who receive those benefits are the people for whom they were intended. In other words, if you claim publicly funded awards because of your race, then your race becomes a matter of public interest. Again, I cannot see how this is contentious. Nor can I see why making this point should justify such rage.

It also seems odd to me that the people who are asking why race should make any difference, and suggesting awards and benefits should be offered on the basis of merit or need are being called racists, while those who demand special privileges for themselves or others on the basis of race seem to assume a moral superiority which justifies insulting anyone who disagrees.

Cameron Dale says:

Yes – thankyou. It really is that simple:

1. This is not a good book, by any standard.

2. Race is only an issue because Anita has made it one.

Mal says: 1. Whose standard? yours and miriam actually – there isn’t any agreed upon standard about what constitutes a good book.

2. Wrong – Andrew Bolt made this and issue. The books is a partial response to that.

Mal says: Interesting that the proponents of “free speech” here are doing their best to cover up the speech of people who disagree with them.

Mal says: Watch out, folks that doyen of literary taste arbiters, miriam dorset has spoken. She has said there is no literary merit in the writing – so there mustn’t be – because miriam said it, and miriam is…Actually what are your qualifications miriam?

Mal says: And quit it with the phoney apologies while you’re at it, miriam. I also not a tone of moral superiority in your last comment.

Miriam Dorset says: If you think I am wrong, Mal, please feel free to quote some passages you think are especially insightful or well-written. I am happy to be convinced.

John Darbyshire and The Talk

April 9, 2012 / / 1 Comment

John Darbyshire has copped some fierce criticism over the last few days for his article The Talk: Non Black Version. The article appeared in Taki’s Magazine, but that page has been intermittently inaccessible. Try Taki’s first. If their page is not working, you can find the full version at Camp of the Saints.

Darbyshire referenced articles in which black parents describe The Talk they give their children. The talk about how to relate to white people and Asians. About how racism is built into white society, how they (young black people) will have to work twice as hard before they are granted the same positive recognition, about white tribalism, etc, etc.

He then goes on to describe various talks he has had with his children about how to relate to black people.

Some of these are claims about reality. Perhaps the most controversial is his claim that black people are on average several points lower in IQ than whites. This is true, he says, no matter how ‘culturally balanced’ the test. It also has practical application – blacks are significantly more likely than whites or Asians to default on their mortgages, for example.

Darbyshire provides some interesting links to studies support his views on this. He might be wrong. The studies might be wrong. But facts are not racist. Truths are not racist. They can be used in racist ways, but it is not clear that Darbyshire is doing so.

As black parents talk to their children about reality as they see it, and how to live within it, Darbyshire talks to his children about reality as he sees it, and how white people can live safely and effectively within it. That means knowing the truth. Rather than yell ‘racist,’ it would be more convincing to provide alternate studies which show he is wrong.

Other parts consist of practical advice:

A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously  hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us.  A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five  percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial  solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague  feeling that whites have it coming.

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical  common sense:

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at  some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date  (neglect of that one got me the  closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

(10e)If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.

You may disagree. Feel free to say why. But I bet this guy wishes his parents had given him some similar advice:

Part One:

Part Two:

Being Who We Are Part Two

April 6, 2011 / / 1 Comment

Just a few brief thoughts.

One:

It seems to me quite clear, at the risk of incurring judicial wrath, that Justice Bromberg would very much like to find against Andrew Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times.

There have been a few comments and questions from the bench which indicate this. For example, his remark that “It (freedom of speech) is not an unqualified right. Never has been.”

No one had said it was. Certainly Andrew’s team had made no such claim. So why make this comment?

I could be quite wrong. Justice Bromberg may genuinely intend to put aside any feelings or political values he may have or espouse, and make his judgement solely on the basis of relevant legislation and precedent.

But at very least, it is unwise for a justice, during the course of a trial, to make gratuitous remarks which could beconstrued as indicating a bias.

Two:

It is simply nonsense to suggest that public discussion of another person’s ethnicity is out of bounds because it is necessarily racial vilification.

Say I was to discover that my maternal grandmother had been a member of the Ngapuhi tribe. One of my adopted sisters is a Ngapuhi woman, and my family had lived in Northland for a long time before coming to Australia, so this is not beyond the realms of possibility.

Say I then decided on this basis that I was a Maori. I would expect some pretty merciless mocking from my mates.

If I decided to return to NZ and to claim benefits or awards on the basis of being a Ngapuhi man, I would expect that this claim would be scrutinised.

I would also expect to be able to show the basis on which my claim was made. I would not feel insulted by requests to do this.

Even I did feel insulted, that would say more about my own conceit than anything else.

There is no right under law not to be offended.

Three:

Underlying the complaint in the Bolt case, and, it seems to me in some of Justice Bromberg’s remarks, is the assumption that race is less about race than it is about identity, community and culture. Some of the comments from the complainants go as far as suggesting that anyone who does not hold this new view of race is ipso facto a racist or eugenicist.

There may be instances where it is helpful to take culture and identity into account when race is being determined.

But that is different from saying that culture, identity, community are what matter, and that actual racial background and inheritance do not. A person who is ethnically Han Chinese is still ethnically Chinese even if she was born in Australia and knows nothing of Chinese culture or language.

I would be happy to see some public discussion of this. But it would be extraordinary if people who still thought that race was primarily about race found themselves in trouble with the law because they held and expressed that opinion.

A Letter to Andrew Wilkie

March 2, 2011 / / 0 Comments

Dear Mr Wilkie,

I have been disappointed by your claims of racism in the Liberal party.

As far as I am aware, no Liberal or National Party member of Federal Parliament has made disparaging claims or remarks about any group or person on the basis of race.

Some members of the Liberal Party have expressed concerns about the willingness of some members of a particular religious group to accept Australian law and values.

Concerns about a religious group are not racism.

Those concerns are shared by many Australians.

Australians in general do not have the same level of concern about other religious groups such as Hindus or Buddhists or Lutherans.

If you believe concerns about Islam to be unfounded, then I suggest you counter them with facts showing that Islam genuinely is a religion of peace, that Muslim attitudes to women and homosexuals are compatible with those held by mainstream Australian society, and that Muslim leaders in Australia are consistent in their denunciation of violence and terrorism, and supportive of Australian values and alliances, eg with Israel and the US.

Claims of racism are factually incorrect. They are dishonest.

They will win you temporary headlines.

But Australians are not stupid. False accusations of racism will not distract from this government’s incompetence and broken promises.

Sent this morning. I am guessing I will receive a form reply consisting of a list of imagined Liberal Party offences, and no attempt at all to respond to community concerns with facts.

Not Having The Approved Opinions

February 23, 2011 / / 0 Comments

Busy at work this morning, but had to stop to comment on the claim this morning from the legacy media that a survey by ‘leading universities’ (I guess as opposed to Australia’s other, less impressive universities) has found that as many as 50% of Australians are racists.

This survey was conducted for something called the ‘Challenging Racism Project.’

The claim that nearly 50% of Australians are racists is based on the fact that 48.6% of those surveyed had concerns about Islam, and the ability of Muslims to integrate successfully into Australian society.

But Islam is not a race. It is dishonest to claim that concerns about the willingness of a religious group to accept Australian law and values is racism.

If the owners of the Challenging Racism Project think these concerns are unfounded, then all they need to do is show that Muslims are no more prone to violence than other Australians, no more likely to commit crime, accept Australia’s laws and alliances (eg with Israel and the US), value women and women’s testimony as highly as mens, tolerate homosexuals, etc.

Oh. Problem?

When influential Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood have a strategy for turning Western democracies into islamic states ruled by sharia law, when a teacher can be brutally attacked on the streets of London for teaching a religious studies class, when islamic schools teach their students that Jews are pigs and monkeys, that Hindus have no intellect and drink cow’s piss, and that disbelievers are the worst of all people, when islamic leaders openly call for the destruction of Israel and anyone who supports it, and for the death of those who disagree with them, then yes, there is a problem. 

It isn’t racist to acknowledge this.

Study co-author Dr Yin Paradies, from the University of Melbourne, said racism against minorities was most common in areas that were more highly populated by those minorities.

People who live in areas with high levels of some ethnic or religious groups are more concerned about the behaviour of some members of those groups than people who live in the leafy suburbs of Melbourne. People who know these groups and see them day to day are concerned. People who don’t are not. If prejudice is judging things you don’t know about, who is it who is prejudiced here?

I am not suggesting every concern is justified. But the way forward is not to condemn, but to respect those who have concerns enough to listen, and then either to acknowledge the concerns as justified and work towards a way to resolve them, or to explain carefully and reasonably why the concerns are not justified.

The study showed a darker layer often lies beneath people’s stated support for multiculturalism: while most supported cultural diversity, 24.1 per cent believed diversity could be equated with a ”weak nation”.

I am not sure why the belief that diversity of religious and political views could tend to weaken a nation should be considered evidence of a ‘darker side.’ That view is held unequivocally in most muslim countries. For example: Maldives is a self governed republic and very homogenous society, with one race, one language and one religion. This makes Maldives very peaceful community in terms of domestic violence and cultural problems.

It is not self-evidently true that a country whose citizens have many conflicting views about values, religion, political systems and alliances will be stronger than one whose citizens are in general agreement about those things. I am happy to be convinced. But I won’t be convinced by being called a racist.

Update

One thing I forgot to note. The ‘Challenging Racism Project’ reported on differences in alleged racism between states. It did not report on differences in racism and anti-semitism between various religious and cultural groups.

Data is offered on anti-semitism and genuine racism as if that racism were the exclusive property of white Australians. ‘Challenging Racism’ says it is worried about Australian attitudes to ethnic groups, and to one religious group in particular.

A major factor in the concerns of many Australians about that religious group is that it is intolerant – of other religions and of particular races.

I wonder whether the survey data show that this concern is justified – that there are high rates of anti-semitism, for example, amongst members of that religious group.

In other words, most Australians are worried about that group for the same reasons that Challenging Racism says it is worried about most Australians.

I note in passing that it is the European nations, along with the USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, which have been most welcoming of migrants of diverse backgrounds, and most careful to ensure that migrants are treated as equals, regardless of race or creed. And it is those nations, the ones that have shown the least institutional racism of any on earth, which are most commonly accused of being racist.

So I can’t help but wonder what is the real agenda behind those accusations.

Who benefits from them?

© 2024 Qohel