Archive for the 'Nationalism' Category

John Birmingham’s Australia Day

John Birmingham writes in The Brisbane Times:

I don’t know whether it’s the increasing numbers of gaudy little plastic flags sticking out of car windows, or the braying jingoism of furniture superstore and gym equipment megabarn advertising that all but demands I part with big wads of the folding stuff at special one-off ’straya day sales on pain of somehow feeling unna’strayan if I don’t, or the drunken munters, the bogan halfwits, or just the whole grinning death’s head kiss-the-flag-Nazi vibe of enforced patriotism, but increasingly I’m finding that Australia Day sucks.

Read the rest here.

On the related topic of the debate about the Australian flag, there’s an interesting post from Shakira Hussein at The Stump.

Elsewhere: Hoyden About Town.

Turnbull on Prince William, Australian identity and the Republic

Intriguing to see that Malcolm Turnbull is about the only Australian political figure who’s put Prince William’s visit into some sort of political context. Writing in The Times, the erstwhile Liberal leader puts his finger on a conception of Australian identity which is truly Republican:

A key element in Australia’s success has been that we do not define our nationhood by reference to a common religion, ethnicity or race. Our culture has always been very open to new ideas.

That’s in stark contrast to both Tony Abbott’s mishmash of Howardian themes and dire mutterings about “values”, and the apparent propensity of the current crop of Australian Labor leaders to avoid the question altogether, preferring to make sure they’re in frame for a right Royal photo-op. Turnbull’s articulation of an inclusive Australian identity will no doubt make an interesting contrast to the anticipated mawkish patriotic themes our ‘Fair Shake of The Sauce Bottle’ PM provides for our edification sometime or other over the next few days.

Google grows a pair?

Google.

We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.

Continue reading ‘Google grows a pair?’

2009 Melbourne Cup open thread

The first Tuesday in November is almost upon us again, so here’s a thread on which you can post your Melbourne Cup selections, reflections, recollections, fashion tips, hangover remedies, revolutionary critiques and whatever else takes your fancy.

Eurovision Open Thread

Throw away your football paraphernalia for one weekend. Frock up, the more sequins the better. Don the uggs. Put the pies in the warmer. Fill the fridge with Margarita makings. Lay up on the snacks and prepare for a serious weekend on the couch.

I wanted to put Bulgaria’s Krassimir up here, because really, they had everything. They had the smoke. They had the wall of flame. They had the explosions. They had clowns dancing on stilts. They had huge wigs. They had chain mail! They had practically the loudest costumes, although I think Sweden outdid them in sheer “WTF??!” value. They don’t call him Krassimir for nothing! But sadly, their song is not up on YouTube yet, except in rehearsal. So I will put up Sweden’s instead, which brings the weird most admirably.

Update: Since that particular embed appears to break the blog (and no wonder really), I’ve replaced it with a link, and also a link to the official website to check out the other participants.

Cronulla Day?

What’s with this?

In the Sydney suburb of Manly, hundreds of youths draped in “Aussie pride” livery wore slogans declaring “f–k off we’re full” as they smashed car windows and ran up the famous Corso targeting non-white shop keepers.

A 18-year-old Asian female in one of the cars was showered with shattered glass, giving her numerous cuts to her arms. She was treated on the scene by ambulance officers.

A taxi driven by a Sikh Indian was also targeted while an Asian shopkeeper was reportedly assaulted.

Groups of men jumped up on cars chanting race hate to the terrified passengers within, and were heard singing “t*ts out for the boys” at passing girls and yelled “lets go f–k with these Lebs”.

Continue reading ‘Cronulla Day?’

Open Obama Inauguration thread

If you’re staying up to watch Barack Obama’s inauguration as 44th President of the United States of America, Crikey has a good guide to coverage and commentary on tv, live streaming, live blogging and twitter. Locally, Hoyden About Town is hosting a livechat. Their website also links to YouTube and audio of notable past inaugural addresses. Here’s FDR:

At The Guardian, Ned Temko looks at past inaugurals, and writing in New Matilda, Aron Paul observes:

Obama’s inauguration may well promise republican and democratic renewal. Paradoxically, however, this year’s is the most monarchic and imperial inauguration ritual that America has ever witnessed.

Continue reading ‘Open Obama Inauguration thread’

Abolishing sedition

Cross-posted from No Right Turn

Three years ago, the Australian government passed draconian sedition laws as part its knee-jerk response to the “war on terror”. Now, Kevin Rudd is planning to repeal them:

The Howard government’s controversial ban on sedition will be scrapped and replaced with legislation that bolsters the protection of free speech under a series of changes to the nation’s terrorism laws.Yesterday the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, flagged plans to increase oversight of the national security apparatus and promised to accept the bulk of the recommendations from the Clarke inquiry, a 2006 Australian Law Reform Commission report on sedition and a parliamentary committee report on intelligence and security.

(The ALRC review recommended replacing the law with a narrower one bearing more resemblance to criminal incitement, with stronger protections for academic, artistic, scientific, political or journalistic speech to make it clear that merely criticising the government, or reporting or studying such criticism, was not in and of itself seditious or treasonous. They also recommended removing the ludicrous claim of universal jurisdiction which allowed people who had never set foot in Australia, let alone bore it any allegiance, to be prosecuted for “disloyalty” against it).

But its not all good news. There’s this bit:

The new counter-terrorism laws – to be drafted in the first half of next year – will cover attacks that cause psychological as well as physical harm…

This current internationally accepted definition of terrorism (as seen in e.g. New Zealand’s Terrorism Suppression Act) includes acts which are carried out for the purpose of “induc[ing] terror in a civilian population” – but it still requires that they cause death, injury, or serious destruction. So, in order to be “terrorism”, it has to involve killing people or blowing stuff up. Allowing psychological as well as physical harm runs the risk of substantially lowering that threshold, allowing the misclassification of other offences as “terrorism”, with all that that entails. Given that anti-terror laws are already overused, that would be a Very Bad Thing.

One of our own

 I have no answers about the death of Tyler Cassidy, only questions:

  • Why are there gangs of boys for whom the most meaningful thing in their lives is the chant “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oi! oi! oi!”?
  • What can/should police do when confronted with a knife-wielding person threatening to kill them? Remember Ron Levi?
  • What could make a 15 year old boy abscond from home, obtain a knife, and start screaming at police?
  • Will we get the usual chorus from the usual wingnut suspects about “personal responsibility” for this death? Or does personal responsibility only apply to Aboriginal boys stealing bicycles in Redfern?

A boy is dead. We mourn. We ask why. I have no answers.

Mumbai terror attacks: an anti-Hindutva motivation?

The Mumbai terror attacks are horrendous and to be roundly and loudly condemned. But, as with all events of this nature (particularly those which involve attacks on Westerners), inevitably there’s been a rush to inscribe their significance within a political frame – the prime candidate being the war on terror. Andrew Bolt can stand as representative here:

THE slaughter in Mumbai was a barbaric attack not just on India, but on us. On the West.

Now, I don’t think that the reflex response to the desire to prematurely ascribe blame to Al-Qaeda before the facts are known should be to rush off in the opposite direction. But it did interest me that many of the television reports a few nights ago sought commentary from experts in terror studies, rather than sourcing those who have a deep knowledge of Indian and subcontinental politics and history per se. This in itself ties in with the desire to write one single narrative of international terrorism, as the terrorism experts in question are usually best informed about Middle Eastern and South East Asian affairs. This in turn both ascribes more unity to international terror networks than actually exists, and turns them into an immediate and default suspected cause, no matter what the specificities of the political and social environment in which attacks actually occur.

Anyone with anything more than a passing acquaintance with Indian politics, society and history, though, would know that it’s quite possible, even probable, that the attacks’ causes lie in factors such as the increasingly weak Indian central government’s inability to control its territory and monopolise the use of violence, and the inability of either the justice system or the state (even after the Congress-led coalition defeated the BJP) to prevent inter-communal violence and massacres such as those in Gujarat in 2002 or hold anyone to account for them. Political violence in India recently, it’s also worthy of note, has often been directed as much against Christians as Muslims, and what we may be seeing is the emergence of what are basically pogroms on a much bigger and more organised scale. The role of the Shiv Sena Party in the governance of Mumbai itself, a party which has called for the formation of Hindutva suicide squads and an ethno-religious sectarian neighbourhood cleansing program in the city, may additionally be a factor.

One shouldn’t rush to judgement. And one shouldn’t do that also for reasons of preserving an awareness of the horror of the deaths and injuries that have been inflicted in Mumbai and some more respect and dignity for the victims than instantly transforming them into political footballs. But if causes are to be sought, and they should be, both the Pakistani connections to violence and the emergence of terrorist movements pushing back against the nationalist pogroms may well be found in time – after the facts are in – to have been at work in these tragic events.

Elsewhere: Crooks & Liars, The Independent and Boing Boing.

Update: Shakira Hussein in Crikey.

Update: The Blair/Bolt Watch Project, Guy Beres and a roundup of citizen journalism at The Guardian.

Unsurprised schadenfreude

Remember all that McCain campaign rhetoric about how Obama’s August 2007 statement on the need for sporadic pursuits of Al Qaeda into Pakistan without prior diplomatic notice showed that he was an irresponsible loon who should never be commander-in-chief? (and a few Democrats sounded off as well before Obama won the primaries)

Well just look at what’s been happening on the Bush-Rumsfeld watch for the last four years, Continue reading ‘Unsurprised schadenfreude’

Australian accents: Speaking Our Language

Bruce Moore’s new book, Speaking Our Language: The Story of Australian Language got a fair bit more press coverage – in the news pages as opposed to the reviews sections – than is usual for a tome authored by an academic. And why not? It’s a lively read, and one that is likely to inspire a lot of curiosity and interest above and beyond the questions of whether Ned Kelly spoke with an Irish or an Australian accent and whether talking like Alexander Downer and Crocodile Dundee at opposite ends of the accent pole is on the way out.

What I found most interesting about Moore’s work was the close attention he gives to the intimate links between language, place and culture. (Incidentally, there’s something of a moral here about how cultural studies first arose – a tale told neatly by Raymond Williams in Writing in Society – as a counterpart to the separation of supposedly timeless aesthetic qualities from their social contexts.) Moore tracks the creation of new words, shifts in meaning and the appropriation of Indigenous names to the distinctive geographical and social formations of a culture forged by the interplay between colonisation, landscape and dispossession. The ups and downs of the reputation of Australian English follow the ebb and flows of nationalism, particularly as related to Britain and the idea of Empire.

Moore is well placed to communicate the results of recent academic research on the origins of accents – dispelling misconceptions about the putative derivation of the Australian accent from “Cockney” (he demonstrates in passing that “Cockney” didn’t mean what we think it means in the Nineteenth Century) intermingled with Irish forms of speech. After all, as he argues, the population composition of all the British outposts in the Southern hemisphere was quite similar – yet very distinct accents developed in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Falklands. He draws on research done in New Zealand to establish that new accents form through a process of selection among children of the second generation. Continue reading ‘Australian accents: Speaking Our Language

History’s children

Reporting of the initial proposals from the National Curriculum Board for directions for history teaching in schools is concentrating on the suggestion that Australian history be embedded within global contexts. Given that there has already been a predictable furore of confected indignation over the appointment of Professor Stuart Macintyre to chair the history panel, there’s no surprises in reading that Gerard Henderson fears such a focus will interfere with learning facts and Kevin Donnelly warns of a return to a “black armband” view of history. And Tony Abbott has written his own mini-curriculum:

History classes should start with the history of the Jews, then move on to the Greeks and Romans, then the history of Britain, Mr Abbott said.

None of this seems to me to be particularly informed comment, or worthy of the importance the history warriors themselves supposedly place on the issue. It’s clearly absurd to teach Australian history as if it doesn’t have a global context.

Stuart Macintyre’s views are outlined in this interview.

What surprises me, though, is that no one has picked up on the fact that Macintyre’s justification draws heavily on Anna Clark’s work in her book History’s Children: History Wars in the Classroom. Clark interviewed a large number of both Australian and Canadian school students on what they liked and disliked and would like to see in the teaching of national history. A world history context was a theme brought up by the students again and again. Some of Clark’s research is highlighted in this article in Overland.

The state of capitalism today II

SocProf over at The Global Sociology Blog and I must be reading the same things, and thinking along similar lines, because I had planned to link to precisely the same articles she highlights in an update to my recent post on the state of the global financial crisis.

In The Guardian, Will Hutton explains why measures to halt the cascading crisis have been ineffectual to date. He might have made more explicit the implication that one of the basic structural problems is that action taken at the level of the nation state can be counter-productive given the disseminations and movements of capital, and that there are real domestic political barriers to coordinated action, as well as all the obvious problems of concertation through institutions such as the EU and the G20.

But he does make this point – harmonising with the note I’ve been sounding repeatedly – very clearly indeed:

There was no effective opposition. The left and organised labour collapsed as intellectual, social and political forces; there was no conviction that any alternative to this shareholder value-driven, financial, ’securitised’ capitalism existed, or any political muscle to support it even if there were. Mainstream culture moved away from public purpose and fairness; the new priorities were individual self-fulfilment, personal experience and loyalty to self.

Hutton is perhaps more sanguine than I am, though, about the capacity of state action to turn all this around. Continue reading ‘The state of capitalism today II’

The good, the Maverick and the ugly: dispatches from the Straight Talk Express

With less than a month to go til America votes, barring any more mad game changing moves or even an October Surprise from Osama Bin Laden or the tattered remains of the Bush administration, all the smart money is on the financial crisis seeing Barack Obama translate the momentum he’s built up into a pretty impressive victory in the Electoral College. What does the GOP have left? It’s surely significant that there are rumours around that the GOP itself – the Republican National Committee – is thinking of pulling funding from McCain advertising and pushing it into Senate races to attempt to forefend a 60 vote filibuster proof Democratic Senate majority (the Senators defending seats this year are those first elected in the Bush first term post s11 surge of the 2002 mid terms). So how about the old white dude himself? There’s one more debate. There may be more lunacy. But there’s certainly lots of ugliness, as the Culture Warriors of the base show their ugly face.

[Via Majikthise, but it's just about everywhere on the web - it's so viral it might just be this cycle's Macaca moment.]

Continue reading ‘The good, the Maverick and the ugly: dispatches from the Straight Talk Express’