Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
If the boat people did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them
|
Thought for the day: maybe the amount of toxic nationalism in a country is pretty much independent of circumstances. In other words, maybe Australia’s propensity to beat up on small numbers of helpless refugees has nothing to do with the refugees themselves, but is simply the result of any more significant target for nationalist anger. The thought is prompted by the fact that I’m in the Basque country, where nationalism is taken seriously. Here in St-Jean-de-Luz, on the French side of the border, most of the directional signs are bilingual, French and Basque. I doubt there are many people here who speak Basque as their first language, but the French have an unpleasant history of suppressing their own linguistic minorities, so it’s nice to see them at least making a gesture in the right direction. But topics such as this are incredibly controversial. In Spain, every move to address Basque grievances has been met with fierce opposition. The Basques even fought on the republican side in the Spanish civil war, despite being devout rural Catholics, because the fascists were also centralists. The right talk about the threat to the unity of “the nation”, as do the opponents of devolution in the UK, or the opponents of greater rights for the Kurds in Turkey, or the Turks in Bulgaria, or (insert your own favorite example) — ignoring the fact that for the minorities it isn’t their “nation” at all. What they want is either secession or the reconstitution of the state on a non-national basis. That’s how nationalism works in most of the world. Countries have borders resulting more or less from historical accident, and they’re rarely a neat match for ethno-linguistic frontiers. Or else (or in addition), there are large waves of immigration that disrupt an existing ethnic balance — as France worries (wrongly, in my view, but not totally unreasonably) about the influx of Muslims from north Africa. Either way, problems. (Einstein called nationalism “the measles of mankind”, but that’s not entirely fair; nationalism sometimes works together with progressive forces, since many nationalists just want freedom for themselves. The problematic sort of nationalism is what used to be called chauvinism, but the more recent usage of that in the context of sexism has eclipsed the original meaning in most people’s minds.) Australia has been mercifully free from most of this. The opposition to bilingual education for Aborigines is a faint echo, but that’s hardly a key issue for most people. Being a country of immigrants, we have no real national minorities, and recent groups of immigrants have assimilated readily. English is almost universally spoken, and no other language contests its primacy in any substantial area; nor does our large measure of cultural homogeneity seem threatened. But national chauvinism, being essentially irrational, isn’t appeased by the lack of grievances; it just manufactures them. Hence, our periodic outbreaks of moral panic over boat people and people smugglers. Objectively, they are trivial, but nationalism is about symbols, not substance — and at a pinch, any old symbols will do. |
|
|
8 Comments
“The opposition to bilingual education for Aborigines is a faint echo, but that’s hardly a key issue for most people.”
Very frustrating and very sad. For us out here it isn’t a faint echo.
The Warlpiri language is treated by the authorities with utmost derision.
“We are in favour of preserving Aboriginal languages” they keep saying. Will they be sending us jars of formaldehyde?
Like the Apology and now “Closing the Gap” its all spin and no substance. We will judge them by what they do, not what they say. On the one hand federal funds are made available to “save critically endangered Aboriginal Languages”, on the other hand the Northern Territory a year ago introduced the “4 hours English only” policy that gave the coup de grace to the last few remaining bilingual programmes. So what do they intend? Kill the remaining strong Aboriginal languages first & then make funds available to save them?
Reminds me of Lebanon, Chechnya, Iraq, East Timor and Afghanistan. Bomb them to smithereens then rebuild them.
On the SBS in this morning’s Spanish news it was reported that a large crowd of “Gallegos” were protesting the language policy of the authorities. Unlike the Galicians, the Warlpiri don’t have the numbers nor the resources to mount large demonstrations.
This article is naïvely simplistic and will appeal to the chattering classes. Every country in the world has border control for safety and securityreasons as well as migration control. I cannot see what the issue is in relation to Basque nationalism or aboriginal education other than as a “stocking filler”. Individuals who overtly challenge legal controls whether they be a legal immigrants all those claiming to be refugees, invite a reaction. There are United Nations controlled refugee programs but those using people smugglers as a component of self-assessment are breaching those controls, as are the even bigger group of visa over stayers, who conduct their breach of immigration controls in a covert manner. This is a bigger problem involving tens of thousands of illegal migrantswhich should be receiving more attention.
The red herring of aboriginal English in an article purporting to be about illegal immigration is a strange inclusion. I would assume that the policy of a minimum of four hours in English is an attempt to overcome the functional illiteracy which condemns aboriginal children to a life of poverty in a community whose primary language is English. The harsh reality is that functional literacy in English is essential in the Australian community, and those who would decry this functional literacy are not going these children any good.
There are numerous examples of the maintenance of literacy standards other than English conducted by communities outside the mainstream education system, as well as a specific subject within the mainstream curriculum. This however requires functional capacity within the non-English-speaking community to facilitate and support this strategy whilst recognising the core importance of English literacy and associated vocational skills.
It would be much better if Charles was to devote his energy supportingsuch strategies and facilitating community interest in maintenance of ongoing language outside the mainstream curriculum.
OK, its a red-herring. It just so happens this red-herring is close to my heart.
What is really frustrating to us supporters of bi-lingual education is that it is assumed we wish to deny Aboriginal children competence in English. Nothing could be further from the truth.
“Above all, let us permit native children to keep their own languages…..There is no need to fear that their own languages will interfere with the learning of English as the common medium of expression for all Australians. In most areas of Australia the natives have been bilingual, probably from time immemorial. Today white Australians are among the few remaining civilized people who still think
that knowledge of one language is the normal limit of linguistic achievement.”
- T.G.H Strelow,1958.
In Yuendumu there is a group of people that went through school at the height of the bi-lingual (Warlpiri/English) programme (around 15 years ago). These people not only are bilingually literate, but happen to be our best English speakers.
I’m really pleased to that you have been successful in bilingual education, as I see this as the key to breaking the cycle of poverty in aboriginal communities combined with necessary opportunities for meaningful economic activity ( work) leading to economic independence which is critical for self-esteem. I have heard Noel Pearson say that some of the best literacy in the aboriginal community came from the old mission schools which were closed down after the referendum in the 60s. I note that you reference a combinedWarlpiri/English program approximately 15 years ago. What has happened in the meantime?
I think the most interesting part of the article is the title. Like Jungarrayi I fail to see how lack of porous borders makes us any less xenophobic. Place-name symbols don’t mean much judging by the number of Australian towns which more or less mark graveyards for entire languages from which the names were (supposedly) taken. Similarly, much of the southwestern US resembles a theme park of Hollywood Indian symbols borrowed from people living in reservations that resemble leper colonies.
“If the boat people did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them.”
Mein Kampf went into the point that the Weimar Republic, for all its nationalist symbolic touchstones, had failed to capture the passions of the people because it had failed to provide them with a clearly identifiable and tangibly visible enemy. Hitler goes on to describe the Jews as being perfect for this purposes.
Moderator, could you please delete my previous comment, I know what word blocked it and I’ll repeat without the dreaded “J-e-w”.
I think the most interesting part of the article is the title. Like Jungarrayi I think a few symbols hardly make a multilingual society, and I also fail to see how lack of porous borders makes us any less xenophobic. Place-name symbols don’t mean much judging by the number of Australian towns which more or less mark graveyards for entire languages from which their names were (apparently) taken. Similarly, much of the southwestern US resembles a theme park of Hollywood Indian symbols borrowed from people living in reservations that resemble leper colonies.
“If the boat people did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them.”
Me-in Kam-pf went into the point that the Wei-mar Republic, for all its nationalist symbolic touchstones, had failed to capture the passions of the people because it had failed to provide them with a clearly identifiable and tangibly visible enemy. Hit-ler goes on to describe the J-e-ws as being perfect for this purposes.
The reference to bilingual education for Aborigines was very much an aside, but I’m pleased to have provoked some discussion on it - I have no expertise in the area, but I’ve read a little on bilingual English-Spanish education in the US, & that seems to tie in with what Jungarrayi is saying above.
On the more general issue, if you really are equally worried about the many thousands of visa overstayers, then OK, that gives you some claim to be genuinely concerned about “border protection” rather than just xenophobia. But the fact that that’s not where the debate is confirms my view that the boat people are a manufactured grievance.
Yes, in various threads I’ve been wondering about a government which on the one hand imports hundreds of thousands of fully-grown workers on the cheap, without having to rear or educate them, and on the other hand throws up its hands in horror at a few thousand people who, in aggregate, are probably not that dissimilar from those we deliberately import. From a cold economic viewpoint the xenophobic arguments are illogical. So the reason must be symbolic.
But what are the Labor government’s chances of attracting the xenophobic vote? I wouldn’t be surprised if the background opinion polling that drives modern governments shows that the Ruddockites are never going to vote Labor anyway. Beazley failed abysmally to try that angle in 2001.
Which leads me to a slightly out-there theory. Governments of countries that generate refugees generally don’t like letting them desert and cry persecution, even if they wish those people hadn’t been born at all. Collectively, such governments add up to a large slice of the UN. What if it’s them, not the domestic xenophobes, that Rudd is playing up to, in preparation for his oft-speculated international ambitions?
I’m drawing a very long bow, yes, but could it be?