Mob violence in Sydney

Remove all ads!

Exactly. And where race is involved, it tends to draw reactions where they wouldn't otherwise be trouble.

Again, I agree. Any perception otherwise is a dangerous assumption.

Isn't that exactly what happens? One incident of perceived injustice (remembering LA in 1992, when four members of the LAPD were acquitted of beating a black motorist) touched off several days of intense, destructive rioting, and a lot of hatred. The details of that case were soon neglected in favour of the public perception of what happened.

I guess that I may not need as much convincing. I'm not a violent man, but if I saw some jackass burning a Canadian flag, I'd be willing to step in and shut him up. If he was of a different race (even though that wouldn't affect my decision), and I seriously injured (or even killed) him, it could touch off a similar situation.

Nobody has any answers, hence these situations continue over the years. While I don't forsee asking people to forget their heritage, I do feel justified to ask them to embrace the nation to which they now call home. That means that if you come from a land where Judism or Christianity is not the common religion, then move to the US, accept that the words "In God we trust" is on the money and that the phrase "one nation under God" is in the pledge of allegence and not bitch about it. There has to be a way for the individual to merge their heritage with their new home. As long as they are trying to make that adjustment, their neighbours ought to accept them.

Syv is right that it is a problem, but it does not follow that multiculturalism is flawed and must be scrapped. The problem is that ethnic cursing or racial slurs as I'm used to hearing it called implies contempt or hatred for a particular group or a perceived superiority over that group. That is at teh root of all racial tensions. When a white man uses the word "nigger" is shows intolerance/contempt for blacks. Even the notion of political correctness is merely watered down racism in this regard. Syv has pointed out the porblem, but offered the wrong solution...

 

I hope you don't mind a stranger barging in.

You would be hard pressed to find a better example of successful multiculturalism anywhere in the world. Yes, there are some racial tensions but on the whole, Australia is a tolerant place. A "fair go" is one of our sayings, and most Australians live by that.

As a Sydney-sider, this has been a sad week. Don't, however, underestimate the role of the media and certain agitators in beating this issue to a frenzy. I'm not sure that I agree with "riot" but the media gets the most mileage from that term.

As to the word "wog", I know few Anglo Australians who would use that word carelessly -- but I have several European friends who self-identify as "wogs", and it is used occasionally in an affectionate way. If there's one thing we Aussies love, it's a nick-name - perhaps we should be more sensitive to the listeners perception at times. Perhaps your friend is hearing offence where none is meant.

 

Nicknames are okay, as long as you know the person. I don't mind Irish jokes and nicknames form people that I know, however if a stranger called me a 'Mick', I would knock his teeth out

 

Sorry, off topic. I understand where Paddy comes from (and Wog and Nigger for that matter). Where does "Mick" come from?

[As I understand it, it's a derivative of 'Mickey' which has evolved into a racial slur against Irish people.] - Beren

[ December 13, 2005, 21:59: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

Aye. Even ni**er doesn't have quite the sting it used to. Black people across the US call each other by that label as an affectionate nick like "dog" or "homey". Of course, being a white boy myself, I'd be jailed if I said it. (Double standards are fun. )

 

@ Carcaroth

A lot of people from Irish descent have surnames starting with "Mc", which is pronounced "Mick", which is where I always assumed the term came from.

 

Actually more people would have the Irish O', or the Norman 'Fitz' names, which mean 'son of'. Anyone with a 'Mc' name would be the decendant of an Ulster-Scots Protestant, however there are exceptions!

These names are anglicised so I wouldn't call them pure Irish names.

Back on topic, racial riots can happen anywhere. An example of N.Ireland would be the silly 'Good Friday Agreement' which means that terrorists could walk the streets again. As terrorism is not what it used to be, the new victims are Asians, Gays and Eastern Europeans, as some people need something to hate. It has not turned into rioting yet, but its still something that worries most people here, as we have always been one of the safest places in Europe for foreigners to settle.

 

Taluntain,

Well, I am sure this single event - as well as constant ethinic cursing - is not reason enough to say "Australian multiculturalism is totally failing". However, Non sequitur gave me the impression of a much more stable and successful multicultural society - in Australia. Of course, there is the possibility that maybe I misunderstood him.
Sure, this is not the end of the world, but I see it as symptoms of something wrong.
---------------------------------------------------

So, do you think that maybe then Sydney and Melbourne are two different realities? I only know what I have heard from my pal, and to me it seems Sydney is a far less good example of multiculturalism properly working; but I am asking you?

I fear that both are different then. He says wog is always used derisively. As an example, he told me there were Italians and Greeks having their asses kicked on the side of the Lebanese in this racial conflict.

On my experience, the right wing population seems pretty ready to engage ourselves in physical confrontation, even at very disfavourable odds, so I would not assume these guys are coward thugs. This is pure speculation though.

So, do you expect this kinda of people to boast such feelings for everyone to see, when there are so many people like you waiting for an opportunity to jail, discriminate or whatever else them?
Dude, I suppose one might brag fairly harsh - or extreme if you wish - views in Russia with no fear of retaliation or segregation, but someone has to be twice as careful in the West.

Ok, but you did not answer me. You seem to have a very strong - and negative - opinion on people who think different from you. Or so it seemed to me in this thread.

Everything posted in a board is intended to draw a discussion or some attention; this thread is no different.
I don't think there is hipocrisy, because as I said, I will never feel myself represented by whatever someone is doing in Australia, for his own sake and motivation.

I did not see suck "sickened" remarks from you or anyone - or at least very few - else in the French riots; much less accusations of "coward thugs". It was more on the line of "poor them, they have social problems and are standing up to Racism". Yes, if I remember properly, you said the riots should be stopped, but I do not remember similar enraged remarks about the rioters of France. You do not seem to make an effort to see the side of these Australians, as you did to understand the condition of those immigrants. I hope you can correct me on all of this.

What trouble? You think starting a thread is "all this trouble" to me? Believe me, if this required any great effort from me, just for the sake of "bait you", I would not do it, but the way it is, I just opened a new thread with two links to start a discussion. I guess it took me 1 minute...

 

Svy: I actually think it would be fairly accurate to call a lot of these people 'cowardly thugs' - some of the pictures I saw posted on Sydney's Indymedia showed that quite well - a huge amount of people surrounding a single guy and punching him while he tried to shield himself - nothing brave about this.

As for the France/Australia comparision - it seemed that the riots in France actually were *for* something, while this just seems like 'Ogg ogg! You <insert race here>! Me bash!' - there's no substance to it. They don't have a goal besides beating the **** out of who they perceive as enemies. It's hard to be sympathetic to either side as they're both doing the exact same thing.

 

Oh no. I read this in today's news:

I can't believe that there are people in New Zealand who actually WANT this nonsense to happen here. Unbelievable.

 

And this, children, is what's known as "rewriting history"; In the France in flames thread,

Pacman, Lefleur, Undertaker, Dendri, Fabius Maximus, Chevalier, Taluntain, Felinoid, and myself all made statements to the effect of "the rioters suck, take 'em down"

Joacquin made the only statement that could possibly be viewed as pro-rioter--and it was more "anti-poverty" than "pro-rioter".

Cuchlain, Iago, SatansBedFellow, DMC, and T2Bruno made comments that can't be read either way.

Wirhe, Morgoroth, Nonsequitor all made statements to the effect that the rioting was unacceptable, but the root causes (economic, mostly) need to be thought about and addressed.

Thanks for playing. Please try again.

 

Well, let's see.
Pacman was against the rioters, no doubt. Lefleur as well. I would say both had a quite clear stance against them, but they are the only ones that can fall in the category of feeling "sickened" by that event, and even so that was not quite their words.
You got to be joking about Fabius though. He kept they typical "poor discriminated immigrants fighting for their rights" rhetorics. A quote to exemplify:
"I mean, some of the suburbs which are now riot zones were erected to house immigrants. Whose fault is it then, when the immigrants keep to themselves? When the society gives them the feeling that they are not wanted?"
Also, here it is what you said when Pacman stood against the immigrants "Stereotype much?" Your first reaction was to defend the rioters. Why you did not accuse people calling those aussies of "coward thugs" of making stereotypes?
The others also wanted to put an end to the riot, but you miss my point. They all had practical reasons to do so, but I did not see such emotional outrage against the immigrants rioters as I have seen for the Aussies. There is a big difference between saying "Stop this riot right away, and deal with the rioters" and "oh my, I am so sickened, how can someone riot like that; they are coward thugs; I am ashamed for them".
No moral or sane person would approve the riot to go on in France, and so I was not surprised to see people demanding the goverment to deal with it. But that is what all pragmatic people would say: disorder = bad.
As for what happened in Australia, it was more than the expected wish to put an end to the whole mess, as I have seen people totally dishearted at the thought people were doing those things. Not to say what happened in France was much worse.

Exactly. Started to give excuses. Well, if someone can give "root causes" for what happened in France, why not do the same for what happened in australia? Double standards?

 

You've just reinforced my points about rewriting history quite nicely. Thank you, Svy. To start with, you said

but now you're saying

However, you are right about fabius. I did indeed put him in the wrong category. My mistake.

Additionally, your point about "stop the rioters" vs. "this is sickening" is valid--but it's not what you were originally saying. It is, further, deliberately misleading; implied in your statements is the idea that those who didn't express that they were sickened by the French riots approved of them, which is clearly not the case.

This is utterly absurd. Claiming that seeking to understand the cause of something is equivalent to excusing it is intellectually dishonest. At best.

As for myself...

A: Immigrants != rioters
B:For my statement to be viewed as defending the rioters, one would have to believe all North Africans (at least those present in Europe) are rioters. Do you believe that, Svy?

 

If bringing up the "root causes (economic, mostly)" to the French riots is "giving excuses", then the root causes for the Sydney riots are only excuses too. One needs to examine the root causes and motives in each case to see how much of a double standard there is going on.

With France it seems to be about poverty and being on the receiving end of racism. With Sydney it seems to be more about "get them [race]s out of our land." Neither justifies riots, but the former seems at least a bit less sickening to me.

People motivated by fear of gang violence close to them would, to me, be in the same category as some of the rioters in France - I don't condone their actions, but they indicate that there are problems in the big picture that obviously should have been dealt with before things got so out of hand. But people whose "nextdoor neighbor's second cousin's son-in-law's coworker's friend's drinking buddy got mugged by dem niggas or so the story goes" aren't much more than racists just looking for an excuse to do stupid things.

 

No, I did not, and I will prove it.

For starters, there were many people who were in the category of making up excuses - pro rioters. Considering the fact it was you who created and put them into this category, this is no way contradicts my claim, which was "What I saw was cheap excuses to turn victims into agressors and vice-versa."
Basically, we both agree there were in the least 5 people giving excuses, somewhat turning agressors into victims, or in the least lessening their responsability. This because I am taking your word for it and not bothering going through the thread in full detail looking for more people.
So, unless you think 5 people's opinions is contraditory to "What I saw was cheap excuses" claim, then I can not see how I am reinforcing your hasty conclusions. Maybe there is a magical number of people - 6, 7? - that would make my assertion be valid? But I fear 5 is not enough to claim "What I saw was cheap excuses". I will make sure next time there are at least 6 people's opinions before I say anything
Futhermore, there is no contradiction in this claim, at all, even considering different analysis possibilities. If you think to say people wanted to put an end to the riot, and at the same time gave excuses to the doings of the rioters is a mutually exclusive assertion, then I am sorry, but you are wrong. For example, I can wish that a serial killer is caught by the police - so he can stop murdering people - but at the same time give excuses as to why he is killing people - bad upbringing, frustration, poverty etc. Of course I would never do it, as I hate to justify the bad actions of people - what is done is done, regardless the motivations - but I am proving to you from a logical perspective that both assertions are not contradictory.

Good that you concede my point is valid. As to your assertion that I was being contradictory, I already proved above it was not the case.
Refuting your claim more in-deepth though, let me comment on the last part in a more detailed manner.
"those who didn't express that they were sickened by the French riots" |= from "approved of them"
Those who disaproved the French riot - but were not sickened by it - did so for pragmatical reasons; you know, disorder, chaos can never be a good thing - I believe I have explained that in my last post. Considering you accept as valid my differentiation between both assertions "stop the rioters" and "this is sickening" I fail to see why you are insisting in this point.

Not necessarily, but I am naturally cynical about those attempts to find the "root cause". There is nothing intellectually dishonest about it.
For example, do you remember that thread about that killer who was seeking to have his death penalty halted by big Arnold? Actually, it was about the "teacher" giving a lecture - more like brainwashing - to their students trying to find these same "root causes" for all his killings. Everything was valid, from an "all-White jury" to "he is a victim of the US racist society". Sorry, but I am skeptical about the motivations of those seekers of root causes. I tend to to keep an eye for patterns - what people call "generalisations".

Sorry, but you won't make me break the rules. "Thanks for playing. Please try again."

 

See: fallacious, duplicitous. See also: Denial.

Actually, that applies to the rest of your post, as well.

 

Good that you gave up discussing with me; or simply failed to address my claims.

Anyway, on topic. Gnarfflinger,

I take you mean Nationalism. That is exactly the problem. I see you - and many others - are assuming Nationalism is to me only a proposed solution to problems such as violence, crime rates, ethnic tension etc. This could not be farther from the truth. Nationalism to me is an ideology concerned with loving your Nation, and wishing to preserve your people, culture and blood. It has nothing to do with being a reaction to the problems of multiculturalism. Nationalism is no reactive, but active and unique in itself.

 

Apologies, folks - have been away for a bit, and have a lot to say.

There are people like that everywhere, HB. I don't understand it either - especially since many are directing their violence at people who've been living here longer than they've been alive. The BS about being "Sons and Daughters of ANZAC" is really only about trying to hide that behind patriotism.

Svy,

Truthfully, yes. There are many reasons why I prefer to live in Melbourne; the prevailing attitude is one of them.

Well, then he has my sympathy. No-one should ever have to put up with that sort of treatment on that basis, no matter what.

As I said earlier, I'd rather people were honest and said what they believed. I might disagree, argue or try to convince them otherwise, but they've a right to whatever opinion they want.

I do have strong feelings about this issue. My "strongly negative opinion" of people who think differently to me is directed principally at their actions. If someone is willing to promote or engage in mob violence based largely on stereotypes, it goes to my basic beliefs about how people should behave. That they're allegedly doing it "for real Australians" only incenses me further, since they do not speak for the other 99%+ of us.

In fairness, it's because I already know their side - we heard it ten years ago with One Nation, and again with Australia First last year. There are some legitimate issues in what they say, but these are swamped under the BS and blame-casting. Funnily enough, some are the same "excuses" that came up in France. Coincidence?

It is the political entrepreneurs who tap that discontent (legitimate and otherwise) and turn it against the nearest visible target (rather than the real culprits) who really get me angry, since they should know better and always seem to duck responsibility.

Okay, my ego must have been taking a walk. I meant the inevitable nastiness that would occur from the flame-baiting, and the fact that you singled me out personally in multiple posts, on this thread.

And rightly so. I hope you're equally suspicious of people attempting to pin the blame on one single thing, too. France and Cronulla are far too complex to base on "just" ethnicity, multiculturalism, racism or poverty. Of course, if we don't bother to examine why it happened and consider the details, should we be surprised or angry if it happens again?

Trying to understand the reason for something happening is not the same as generating excuses. Any proposed explanation or remedy based on a simplistic solution instantly makes me suspicious. And weren't you the one who said they (France) had brought it on themselves?

Sadly, the bolded part is the real problem. Nationalism is necessarily a discriminatory and aggressive ideology (to some extent). It implies that anyone who does not share those traits - and of those you've listed, some are inborn and immutable - is unwelcome, dangerous or a threat. There's a big difference between loving one's country and attacking people who aren't like oneself.

My perception of Nationalism (as you've defined it) as problematic can probably best be summed up thusly: the One Nation and Australia First parties. They aren't open racists - that'd be foolish - but they tie every problem facing the average person in Australia and the traditional distrust of those in power to immigration, multiculturalism and religion. The biggest problem is that this cocktail of truths, half-truths and outright fabrications has a few elements of merit, but it's enough to bring out the more rabid racists. And as last weekend demonstrated, you don't need many people to start a fight.

Of course this is more than a one-way issue. There wouldn't be reprisals otherwise, and I don't feel anybody is justified in this kind of action or retaliation. The fact that both sides see themselves as victims only makes it harder to resolve.

 

But love of your adopted nation should not rob you of your love for your heritage. True, I am a third generation Canadian (and only three of my Great Grandparents were born outside of Canada), but I am still proud of my ancestry (like Southern Kentucky among others).

 

I'm pretty sure that Australia First is openly racist - I've read in several places that they were some of the agitators in these riots - actively stirring up trouble on the beach.