is it racist to say...

I wonder if I were to say that "Vinod Mehta is a friggin idiot" would that be a racist remark?

Well to my understanding I can't see how it would be, as I do not make any assumptions on the fact that his ethnicity (ie being an Indian) is related to the observation that he's a dickhead who is quite likely to be suffering from "Cranial Inversion" *(where ones ass is substituted for ones head).

Instead Vinod seems content to peddle the racism accusation in support of some unclear agenda but clearly involves whipping up anti-Australian views and to incite racism towards all Australians within India. (if you don't know what I'm on about here or who is Vinod Mehta, try reading this). This my friend is called incitement to racism punishable by law in some countries if not in India (where it seems to be OK). This makes me wonder about the concept of racism in India ... perhaps its really the norm?

Vinod refuses to accept that perhaps we aren't a nation of racists, and as anyone with much training in philosopy will tell you; it is impossible to prove the negative (ergo I can not prove that Australia is not a racist country). I believe that it is called "unfair burden" in legal terms.

Well dude, I don't want to sound defensive, but the reason (in my view) that you don't see Indians saying "Bloody Australian bastards, go home" (which you do actually) is because:

• its mostly said in forums which are not English language based and thus noone notices and reports this
• Indians want our tourism dollars there in India where ordinary families and businesses (who are massively let down by the Indian Government) need the income provided by "white" tourists, since they know we'll Go Home after spending heaps, there is no problems
  

not because there is any significant difference between Indians and Australians, though I bet it feels better to say this after we beat you in the Cricket. Say, this is an interesting point ... wikipedia seems to suggest the following data on the Indian Cricket Team:




More losses to Australia, more losses to England, more losses to Pakistan (whom we all know they hate). After the bitching about racism in the last test match I wonder if I'm on to something here? It must be hard being a such a monumental looser while having a self image of being such a super power (look at their nuclear arms projects).

Do we see screams of racism when they loose to Pakistan? Probably not, and probably because the slur ("you're a racist") would have no weight in that context. They cry racist to us because they know it will stir at our hearts ... mostly because we worry about what others think of us.

So with evidence (nasty stuff that, known to cause sufferers of Cranial Inversion to get a rash) suggesting the recent "worst crimes" against Indians in Australia seem to be committed by Indians or as an act of fraud the case for the screaming and rattling seems to diminish.

This is inconvenient isn't it ... oh well ... never let the truth get in the way of a personal theory.

Having worked with a few Indians (both in India and in Japan) I can say that admitting your wrong is something which is seldom done (personally never seen or heard of it, but I won't say never done). I guess thats a social thing in India, but in Australia its the mark of a respectable person.

Being able to say "shit, I made a mistake, I'm wrong about that" ... takes guts.

I guess you won't see that coming out of Vinod's mouth any time. Shit, saying this probably makes me racist again... oh dear I'm just making it worse for myself.

I've said before we need to look carefully at what's happening over there in India, as things are changing, and this rhetoric is perhaps an indication the Indians are actually setting up for a return to the rule of an Empire like Ashoka the great ... meanwhile poor old Ghandi is turning in his grave.

cultural clash problems is not racism

I'm quite saddened to read of the escalation of problems with Indian students back home in Australia. I guess that its inevitable that the police do nothing about it until there is a fatality. Then perhaps the mechanisms of administration can still do nothing. Its just like here in Finland with the supermarket shooting, or even the recent school shootings. I'm sure that the tragedy in Australia is similar, with the people who committed the crime being known to police.

While the police had knowledge of the perpetrator being 'odd' (or in this case having a restraining order against him), they were not able to do anything based on suspicions. Now, while this seems horrible I think its really the only way, as there is no way we want a return to a Police past where we have the likes of a Gestapo who can do anything they want on suspicion alone.

But it brings up another interesting point, the Indians are now starting to howl that Aussies are racist.

I think this indicates both how short memories are and the propensity of people to be hypocrites (at least at a social level). For example it doesn't take much digging to reveal how Indians persecute and kill people based on their religion, and anyone who has visited India even briefly will be sure to see how much racism there is there (ask any Gujjar).

So before Indians start ranting about Australia I suggest you take a look in the mirror and clean your own house before you start making calls to punish Australian Tourists.

I would say that its a 90% chance that this action was committed by some stupid dope who doesn't even understand what being Indian, Chinese, Arab or Korean means ... other than being different. I think its even just as likely that the person is from another ethnic group than "anglo" Australians.

From this article:

But the distorted story of white racism has been helped along by the prevailing sensibilities of reporting of crime in Australia, with skittishness about detailing the gritty reality that most violent street crime in Sydney and Melbourne is not committed by whites.

This isn't the first time I've had experience with the press reporting things strangely in India. When I was there in 2001 people often asked me "why do Australians torture immigrants" ... all because in 2001 the press was running articles suggesting that the detainment of asylum seekers "amounted to torture" in the opinion of some person.

This also comes at an interesting time as Australians are confronting problems with our multiculturalism.

Its also interesting that there have been reports that the violence has been committed by Australians of East Asian origin (so I have read in the Australian, but can't find the link). Reportedly not because they are Indians per se, but that Indians are soft targets who don't fight back.

It seems that back in 1979 the Australian Government was very concerned that the acceptance of and cultural influence of large cultural population changes. There is a non public participation media debate (or is it side show) where the issues of immigration are being put forward. There are sides to the story, but usually very little information.

As I have stated elsewhere in my blog I think that Australia has benefited hugely from our acceptance of migrants and refugees over the last 70 years. I for one would not wish to ever return to the "Anglophilia" we suffered from as a little colony. But this does not mean that I would unreservedly say we should bring in anyone who wants to come.

I think that we need to look more carefully and more intelligently at our immigration policy, in fact I wonder if we really need to be taking as many immigrants as we currently do.

Its a vexed question, but one which we need to engage with in an intelligent and discursive manner, and bloody fast too.

racism and violence in Australia

I was reading (with a sad heart) the story of protests in Australia against violence against Indian people which turned into violent scuffles with the police. My first reaction was to wonder what was what the hell is going on and why are people picking on Indians in Australia??

Then I read this (from here):

But a group of "rabble-rousers'' separate from the Indian students may have hijacked the protest, Mr Overland said.

"I think their demonstration was hijacked - it initially started as a peaceful demonstration.

"The organisers of that demonstration then left.

so it seems that its another case of a minority with a separate agenda hijacking the situation for their own purpose. Especially if the following is true...

The police chief said some demonstrators were clearly affected by alcohol, which prompted police to close the nearby Young and Jacksons hotel bottle shop, he said.

"They were going in there and accessing alcohol, and we knew that wasn't going to resolve the issue,'' he said.

"There were some people in there who weren't Indian who were rabble-rousers who had their own agenda and didn't seem to have much very much to do with the issues that are confronting the Indian students.''

A collection of weapons, including knives, was found once the demonstrators left.

"They I think were obviously responsible for some of the tactics that were then used by the Indian students when we moved in to disperse the crowd,'' Mr Overland said.

Penny Wong (cited here) seems to feel that "racism in Australia is confined to a minority of people with extreme views". As a Malaysian migrant she should know more than me (I only went to school with Vietnamese and Greeks, I'm anglo so I wouldn't really know) but I really hope so Penny.

racism

I often struggle with this concept. I find myself feeling that on the one hand that its wrong, while on the other can see clearly there are differences in races and cultures making it obvious to me that things are not the same. I don't think I'm racist, but perhaps others may?

So do we deny the existence of the differences? I think that would be wrong and false.

I've recently re-found in my older readings list an interesting quote which I think sheds light onto this subject.

The author said that it is easy to define racism. Racism 'involves treating race as a distinguishing factor when it is irrelevant, or failing to take account of it when it is truly relevant.'

This sums it up nicely, and at the same time exposes the flaw (I'll get to that).

I see that discrimination is a human trait; when you are in the supermarket picking a product out do you grab randomly or do you have a favourite brand which you feel to be better? If you do, then your discriminating between the products. There is nothing wrong with this.

The change to the (perceived) negative comes when you pick based on what is irrelevant rather than the relevant. For example are you choosing the item because of the pretty package or due to known utility or quality?

Now its starting to submerge into murky water, as we've now introduced differing values. Who is to say that my values are more relevant than yours? Probably you don't think so.

I believe that this is what explains why some people in our society remain racist while others are not; the differing value judgment as to what is relevant and what it not.

Ultimately I don't think I'm going to solve this issue in 200 words or so, but perhaps I might get more people (including me) to think about "is this trait relevant to the issue"

:-)