Comments

1. gatamala wrote:

   The Italian response to “freedom fries”.

   Why even stop at pineapple? They should ban greek olive oil.

   Nothing like a mix of protectionism and racism.

   Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 1:00 pm ¶

2. Deaf Feminist Punk! wrote:

   hahahaha! oh my god, I’ve always hated Silvio Berlusconi. If this isn’t Italy slowly reversing back to Fascism, then I don’t know what it is!

   Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 1:07 pm ¶

3. Alpha Asian wrote:

   My boss spent a year in Italy and he said that this was very true: the Italians do not wish to have any outside culinary influences. During his time there he only saw one Chinese restaurant. He and his family had a huge hankering for Mexican food, but of course, there wasn’t a Mexican place around. So they tried to make their own Mexican dishes, but they found it difficult, since they couldn’t even get the right ingredients at the market.

   From what I understand, they also keep major restaurant chains out. Although the McDonald’s that are there are immensely popular with the native Italians.

   Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 1:09 pm ¶

4. Phrone wrote:

   Wow…that’s pretty terrible. I thought the right was generally for free markets? Evidently not when they’re crazy enough, and the markets are foreign enough.

   I could (almost) understand asking any restaurant to only use Italian food…as a way to protect industries. It would be bad because those types of protections tend to hurt countries, and it would have a discriminatory effect. But it wouldn’t be as bad as this. This is just absurd.

   Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 1:15 pm ¶

5. michael wrote:

   Did you know that rice is actually Italian?

   Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 1:38 pm ¶

6. Asada wrote:

   This is tought to hear. Its hard when one looses thier culture, on BOTH sides of the equation. ITs food for heaven’s sake!

   I get fearfull of anti-”them” policies. In the end you can end up with totalitarianism and fascism.

   Has anyone been following the money trail with this story? What the deal?

   NO pineapple!! That should be a capital offense!

   Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 1:39 pm ¶

7. Lilly wrote:

   This is a tough one, if only because a good idea is buried deep, deep under all the xenophobia and probable racism. The good — why yes, it would be best if restaurants used only Italian, i.e., local, ingredients wherever possible, thereby supporting local economies and reducing carbon footprint etc.
   Sadly, this is clearly not what is worrying these dudes. If you’re really scared about “outsiders’ ” restaurants getting all over your Italy, then go after the multinational corporations and ban them — they’re way more of a threat to you than the mom’n'pop Indian place. Who, because they’re probably a small business, will be far more likely to interact with their community and support it anyway.

   Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 2:21 pm ¶

8. Jess wrote:

   Silly as this is, and stupid as it is, there’s an undercurrent that it comes from that we should acknowledge– when Zaia talks about using only Italian ingredients.

   There’s been a longstanding issue with imported agricultural goods to Europe, (and the US, though in a different way). Farmers there got subsidies because the big agribusiness firms could just roll over them, and there’s been a back and forth between various parties as to how to maintain rural economies. It’s the old debate over whether you subsidize the local farms or not.

   So, I can see how an effort to curb imports of agricultural goods that can be grown in Italy — not in and of itself a terrible concept — would morph into this kind of silliness when a bunch of right-wing nuts get a hold of it.

   Simply put, the local governments aren’t in much of a position to ban anything like this, and it will fall apart in any court challenge. There are, according to the article, 600+ ethnic restaurants in the city already. They can’t close them all without some kind of compensation, which no government will shell out. It would be political suicide.

   Also, the Northern League is the same group of nuts that wanted to secede from Italy entirely. People forget that while the land of Italy is old, the nation only dates back to 1870 and the modern borders to 1918. Anyway, these guys have been complaining about being unified with the south (Sicily and the area south of Rome) for a long time. Thankfully, they have little political traction as in the context of an EU their quest to have an independent north makes little sense anyway.

   Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 2:25 pm ¶

9. Kandi wrote:

   Isn’t this the same as “Buy American”?

   Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 2:26 pm ¶

10. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ Kanhi: If it were decided that ‘American’ meant only jeans and t-shirts and SUVs – not whatever can be/is made in America. Oh, and no more shops selling anything from outside of America.

    @ Jess: I think the issue is what constitutes an ‘Italian’ ingredient. This is not about food shed boundaries; it’s about cultural boundaries. Even if someone wanted to have a Chinese restaurant using only ingredients grown on an Italian farm, they could not.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 2:38 pm ¶

11. A.D. Nix wrote:

    This is bananas. Non-Italian bananas.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 2:41 pm ¶

12. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ Kandi: “Kandi” not “Kanhi”. Apologies!

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 3:20 pm ¶

13. Elton wrote:

    Yet another example of people blabbing their unqualified opinions to anyone within earshot. WORK IN A RESTAURANT FOR SIX MONTHS before you act like you know a damn thing about the business.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 3:31 pm ¶

14. NancyP wrote:

    There are lots of ways to promote traditional food. Outdoor festivals, cooking shows, free tastings and recipes, contests, food reviews in newspapers, good food writers, references in TV shows, the list goes on. Where’s the Italian Alice Waters? In-season local food movement?

    These nitwits need to work the existing free market better, not go all protectionist.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 3:59 pm ¶

15. Mary wrote:

    Geez, even down here in North Carolina, we’re OK with kebab restaurants.

    Except for the sherriff of Johnston county, who told the newspaper he didn’t eat spaghetti because it’s not American enough. But even he was roundly laughed at and had to apologize.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 4:01 pm ¶

16. Cynthia wrote:

    According to some of the comments, it appears that the ban is only for a certain historical parts of Luca. It’s like having a Starbucks at, say, Monticello.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 4:11 pm ¶

17. jen* wrote:

    Maybe that’s why this Zaia dude is so cranky. What kind of life can he have if he has denied himself pineapple? Oh, the yumminess. In fact, I’d say that these guys are severely lacking in the warm fuzzies that yummy kebabs and curries and mangoes and pineapples bring – and that if they indulged, they’d be much more inclined to live and let live.

    I see no reason why the necessary ingredients for a broader ethnic palate couldn’t be grown in Italy. The climate should be amenable for nearly all the “banned” items, and still allow for economic stimulation on the home front. I agree that this is culinary/gustatory racism and it’s a crying shame.

    Even sadder is the fact that it seems one must search incredibly hard to find a decent Italian restaurant in Rome. [Gelato is easy though. And fantastic!]

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 4:22 pm ¶

18. Lakergrrl wrote:

    @ gatamala : cosign

    @Alpha Asian: Oddly enough, I can’t even the ingredients to make my own Mexican dishes here in D.C.!

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 4:30 pm ¶

19. Nick wrote:

    Italy is essentially a fascist country again, they’ve started rolling out a program to fingerprint every single roma (gypsy) in italy, because “roma are natural theives” or some other ethnic essentialist bullshit

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 4:33 pm ¶

20. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ NancyP: The founder of the Slow Food movement is Italian and based in Italy. That’s the organization’s heart. I don’t think this has much to with an actual threat to Italian food. If so, the ban would include French restaurants.

    @ Cynthia: Actually, more like having a Thai restaurant at Monticello. Starbucks is “American” so that’s ok. And the ban isn’t in Lucca alone. It also covers (or will soon cover) Milan. Then the rest of Lombardy, no doubt.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 5:05 pm ¶

21. Free wrote:

    Well, I’m not surprised that this is happening in Lucca. I spent a lot of time there in 2006 – delicious food, the best in Italy IMHO. A lovely place, tarnished by xenophobia, and thankfully, there are nice people who aren’t. I wonder what they’re going to do about the fish and chip shop that opened up on Via Filungo, which is inside the ancient city. LOL. When I go to Italy later this year I will eat at all four of Mehmet Karatut’s kebab shops.

    All over Italy, grocery stores of all types post signs that designate Italian made products. I liked the idea and wished this for the U.S because I thought the aim was to support local farms and to safeguard against unsafe food (a legitimate concern). This article is an eye-opener. Notice the use of the word Saracens? That word hearkens back to the Crusades and exposes what is really going on. Glad to know that Lucca’s center-left opposes this nonsense.

    I photographed a 80,000 person right-wing demonstration in Rome. The route passed by Termini railroad station and through the Esquiline, which are home to thousands of immigrants. The expression of fear on the faces and in the voices of the Bangladeshis who watched the parade was awful to see, (I spoke to but didn’t photograph them). The parade ended at Piazza San Giovanni in Laterano where Berlusconi was the main event along with Alessandra Musolini, granddaughter of Benito. Too bad the camera battery died.

    After the demonstration guys carrying Allianze Nazionale flags lunged at me and said something I didn’t understand. They probably thought I was from India, many Italians do because, ya know, they can tell by my eyes. LOL
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/madametravels/sets/72157594569741486/

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 5:17 pm ¶

22. Beth wrote:

    re: “Italian ingredients,” what counts as one and what doesn’t? In addition to the tomato, as mentioned by Owen, corn comes from the new world as well. Does that mean no more polenta? Or, will they resort to making it out of farro and chestnut powder, as Wiki suggests it was made pre-corn?

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 5:18 pm ¶

23. Alpha Asian wrote:

    Lakergrrl,

    D.C. must be part of Italy then, because I couldn’t find a decent Chinese restaurant when I was there.

    I’d go nuts if I lived in a place with no decent Chinese or Mexican food, and ate plain pasta all day.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 5:30 pm ¶

24. Joseph wrote:

    I’ve blogged this article myself–glad to see it on Racialicious too.

    @Kandi
    No, it is more like “Buy white.”

    Although the absurdity of this makes it easy to dismiss, that would be a mistake. Comparisons to US “Buy local” sentiments are also misleading. The efforts of the Italian Right in this context are in harmony with other expressions of xenophobia directed at Arab, African, South Asian and/or Muslim immigrants throughout Europe. I’ve spent time in Europe over the last few years and the antipathy toward these populations is palpable. Unlike the US, which at least pays lip service to the idea of a common national identity Europe has no such tradition. So many former European empires are now faced with generations of perpetually un-assimilated “foreigners” within their own borders. It is a prescription for disaster.

    So the (relatively) marginal status of the Northern League within Italy isn’t really the point here. Italy is moving further to the right altogether–as are other nations within Europe. And the European left is sometimes just as antagonistic to these immigrant populations. The cottage industry in new books decrying organized religion from European intellectuals are often (pardon the pun) thinly veiled attacks on Islamic religious and cultural values–which are perceived as utterly at odds with the secular traditions of otherwise liberal European states (like France, Norway, Denmark etc.).

    So yeah, this is silly. But it is also a red flag.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 5:36 pm ¶

25. Jess wrote:

    I understand the concern over the rise of right-wing parties in Europe, but I honestly am not so sure that the problem is as bad as it might be.

    In fact, I’d describe a lot of it as a sort of rear-guard action, as similar movements int he US have been. The militia movement was dangerous to be sure, but it wasn’t an existential threat to people’s freedoms (though they would like to have been) in the way the old black shirts were.

    Reasons? Well, the right wing parties haven’t done all that well in European elections — their coalitions haven’t been a majority in many places, and beyond the relatively conventional center-right parties (that are actually to the left of the GOP, rather like conservative Democrats) people like France’s Le Pen just haven’t made a lot of headway.

    Not to say there aren’t serious issues hat many countries have to deal with — the introduction of land-right citizenship is one that will have to be decided on in places such as Germany.

    I think the problem is more acute in the east — Poland, for instance — where the right wingers have ha more success. That’s usually connected to conservative religious movements there, as I remember.

    The colonial tradition can work for you as well, you know — it wasn’t all that long ago that if you were born in Algeria you were a French citizen. Whatever problems they have, I think France and Britain seem to be dealing with these issues better than Italy does, or the Germans.

    (Yeah, I know there were riots in France, but there was a willingness to talk about things there that is encouraging, just as the riots in the US weren’t the last word on racial relations. And recall that in most of these countries you are dealing with the very definition of ‘citizen’ — something that is, I think, a less pressing and recent discussion in the US — where after 1865 there was never any question that black people were citizens, just what rights they had as such).

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 7:49 pm ¶

26. hexy wrote:

    Aw, man. I hope this doesn’t catch on… I’m an Australian vegetarian! If we’re stuck eating only cuisine that originates in our own countries, I’m screwed.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 8:48 pm ¶

27. UGLY DEAF MUSLIM PUNK GURL! wrote:

    didn’t you guys hear? Xenophobia is all the rage in Europe. Always has been and always will be.

    Europeans are more racist than Americans. I’m allowed to say that, because I grew up in both continents.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 9:39 pm ¶

28. thepatriot wrote:

    Australia seems to be going down the same path. Look what happens there:

    http://www.allnewsweb.com/page1881887.php

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 9:58 pm ¶

29. InJM@work wrote:

    @thepatriot (#28)
    That is disturbing but mobs don’t order the closure of resturants selling non-Australian food. They don’t order, they just smash windows, steal, make messes, and just trash places. I’m not sure which is worse, mobs or the government. I guess it all comes to the government in the end though. Turning a blind eye my shoe.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 11:06 pm ¶

30. Rchoudh wrote:

    Wow such nonsense….what’s next banning ethnic fashions in favor of having Italians wear only “Italian labels” (that might be getting produced and manufactured in developing countries)?

    While I understand their initial intention of protecting local farmers, it’s funny to see how that has balooned into this ban on all foreign cultural cuisine. And how much longer are they going to remain protectionist over their farmers? The US has been chastising Europe over this alot, since Europe’s ban on farming goods includes US products too, such as beef imports. All this protectionism goes against earlier arguments made in favor of free trade that the West often likes to give towards developing economies. Measures such as this will only send t he message that developing nations should open up their economies to free trade but the West has the luxury of being protectionist whenever it wants to.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 11:44 pm ¶

31. Rchoudh wrote:

    Oh and BTW all these xenophobia has led to an increase in hate crimes against foreigners. Just recently in Italy three Italians beat up and burnt a homeless Indian laborer. Berlusconi’s party is being blamed for fanning anti immigrant sentiments which led to that.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 11:47 pm ¶

32. Sobia wrote:

    And the irony of it – the piece thepatriot posted in comment #28 says that Italians have also been the target of these Australian racists.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 1:17 am ¶

33. Nathan wrote:

    #28

    Ah, not a snowball’s chance in hell are we going down that path, mate. White Australia policies are decades dead.

    I heard about those incidents as well, but you are talking about a mob of 13-18 year olds who’d gotten a hold of a lot of booze with almost no adults around. Impressionable, drunken obscenity ensued, and the cops need to follow that up as far as they can.

    But 99.9% of the rest of the country went on without issue. And the absolute closest we ever saw to moves like the Italians proposing there here in WA (which has as varied a demographic makeup as any other capital in Aus), was Jack van Tongeren’s mob last decade, who firebombed a pair of asian restaurants and distributed racist propaganda.

    He, and a hefty part of his organisation, saw the inside of Casurina prison for their trouble. Interestingly enough, that was actually *before* the rise of serious nationalist feelings in Australia.

    We do, mind you, have Buy Australian campaigns, but they have never contained xenophobic messages or advertising strategies, just economic exhortations. There has never been a ‘preserve our culture’ element to it.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 6:46 am ¶

34. gatamala wrote:

    patriot’s link says,

    The typical reaction of the Australian political class is to play this sort of thing down and pretend it doesn’t exist

    Nathan~ you say

    Ah, not a snowball’s chance in hell are we going down that path, mate. White Australia policies are decades dead.

    I heard about those incidents as well, but you are talking about a mob of 13-18 year olds who’d gotten a hold of a lot of booze with almost no adults around…99.9% of the rest of the country went on without issue

    That was typical

    boys will be boys (& apparently girls will be girls) as an excuse for violence born of racism and xenophobia?

    Liquid courage can have deleterious effects on behavior. It does NOT cause racism.

    Too many of my friends (of many backgrounds) have come back from Australia with negative stories. I was part of a conversation where an Australia woman (who lived decades in the US) refered to a black person as colored. It was called “Arkansas with an accent” (apologies to razorbacks).

    *****

    It looks like Italy is headed to black shirt territory again.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 10:15 am ¶

35. Francis J. wrote:

    We all heard of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance, and despite what the French want to believe, the etiquette (or the Art of good manners) originally came from the rich Italian state of Venetia. Italy is the country with the highest amount of entries in the World Heritage list (47 out of 878) so Italians are taught at school the fallacy that their country holds the “highest” culture and subsequently the “highest” cuisine in the world. The latter statement allegedly being confirmed by the success of Italian food and Italian dishes abroad.

    I have lived in Italy for 8 years, and I came to realize that most Italians are religious when it comes to food. There are very strict informal rules about what ingredients can or cannot be mixed together and at what time of the day. Disregard for those rules shows a lack in fundamentals of etiquette and will make you look like a barbarian: try to order salami in the morning, milk and orange juice alonside or a cappuccino in the afternoon, and look at the waiter’s face.

    As rightfully outlined in other comments, many a fruit and vegetable currently grown in Italy wasn’t there in the first place. Past open trade allowed for them to be imported for the very first time.

    Some Italians mistakenly blame their economy’s inflation on immigration and outsourcing. For them it makes sense to favor Italian-grow crops over imported ones, even though the problem of the country’s weak economy is more to be attributed to high employment taxes, powerful unions and resistance to reform …only to name a few.

    That being said, the Melamine milk scandal from China fuelled suspicion about imported food, so Luca Zaia’s motion falls into the logic of banning all food ingredients whose quality cannot be clearly certified.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 11:02 am ¶

36. Brooklynperson wrote:

    So this is what the 1930s were like. Except now we have computers and television. And atomic weapons.

    Eeesh.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 11:10 am ¶

37. rob wrote:

    There was a thread a bit like this a couple of weeks ago on the westernisation of ethnic foods. I said then it was stupid to politicise food and now look what this idiot politician has done.

    Food is something you put in your mouth, hopefully enjoy and continue living on. Choosing between italian and chinese food is just empty posturing.

    Of couse people have mentioned local produce and such like and they are right. A truly revolutionary and progressive attitude to food would be to commit to a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, to buy only organic, locally produced, in season products, to grow as much of your own as you can.

    Thats how to get political about food, if you must, and it bears no relation to anything that mr zaia is about.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 12:11 pm ¶

38. NancyP wrote:

    Italy is the most worrisome Western European state at the moment, what with the Berlusconi government and his family’s ownership of approximately half of all Italian media at all levels (TV, radio, newspapers, news magazines, book publishers, movie studios, and probably significant distribution channels).

    Being Roma anywhere in Europe is dicey, and Italy, while bad, is hardly the worst as regards violence from all sources.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:26 pm ¶

39. Nathan wrote:

    “That was typical

    boys will be boys (& apparently girls will be girls) as an excuse for violence born of racism and xenophobia?

    Liquid courage can have deleterious effects on behavior. It does NOT cause racism.

    Too many of my friends (of many backgrounds) have come back from Australia with negative stories. I was part of a conversation where an Australia woman (who lived decades in the US) refered to a black person as colored. It was called “Arkansas with an accent” (apologies to razorbacks).”

    First off, I’d like to say its pretty gross to try and tag us all for the actions of a mob of drunken, racist teenagers.

    Second off, characterising what I said as “boys will be boys” is crooked to the point of lying. Saying an action is obscene and warrants full prosecution by the law is not ‘oh, boys will be boys’. We do have hate crime modifiers in the law and I would expect to see them employed.

    Third, you say “Arkansas with an accent”, and the article (published in, I might add, a news site spruiking articles alleging that the altitude drop in Qantas Flight 72 was caused by UFOs) in question deploys “Kristallnacht on the Beach” and people make accusations that what is happening in Australia is just like what is happening in Italy. Is anyone inclined to be rational or are we just going to slang around nonsense? Lets recap, there are no moves to stop immigration nor prevent it from particular non-European countries. There are no attempts to ship out immigrants who have already come here. There are no lynchings, there are no equivelants to what the Italians are doing to the Roma. No barriers to people of all backgrounds getting into govenment. There are no attempts to murder all foreigners (Kristallnacht on the beach, bloody hell) and destroy on their businesses, with the eventual goal of marching them into ghettos to kill them all.

    And just what weight I’m supposed to give to your anecdote of a woman decades removed from Australia employing a word that has no historical impact in an Australian context, I don’t know.

    Happened to talk to my father just after he got back from a business trip to Singapore and found that, universally, the only Singaporeans he met who had impressions of Australians as generally racist, were the ones that had never been there.

    So we are to judge all nations by only their least savoury 1%? All England judged by their soccer hooligans, all Zimbabweans by their leader, all Korean-Americans by one gunman? Because this is not behaviour or attitudes accepted by Australians as a whole.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 2:22 am ¶

40. Joyce wrote:

    #28 and 34

    Speaking as an Asian-American woman living an Australia, I find the assertion that Australia is going down the same path as Italy, with its government-sanctioned campaigns against foods that are “un-Italian” to be a bit of a stretch.

    “Too many of my friends (of many backgrounds) have come back from Australia with negative stories. I was part of a conversation where an Australia woman (who lived decades in the US) refered to a black person as colored. ”

    I heard those stories, too, from quite a few of my own friends and family before I m oved here. Here’s the part most people who only visit, don’t understand. Australian approaches to handling difference in race, religion, sex and so on, is somewhat different than those found in a America. To borrow an analogy from one of my old Asian-American Studies professors, America ideally would be something akin to a salad, lots of different components, separate but each contributing their own value to the society as a whole, and valued as such. Australia, on the other hand, is much more similar to what a good part of America still considers itself: a melting pot. And obviously, when I say “ideally”, I mean in the more sane and reasonable factions of the two respective societies.

    The society and culture here is pretty multicultural. Appreciation for different cultures and their values, is inherent for most Australians, but it’s incorporated into the culture as a whole, rather than separated into their individual parts and identifying distinctly as specifically part of one race/ethnicity/background or another. There certainly is an aspect of separatism, but no more than I’ve ever encountered anywhere else in the world, and far less than I’ve met with in the US. Do they buy into stereotypes here? Yes. But, so does everyone else the world over.

    To get back to your friends with the negative stories, here’s something else to keep in mind about Aussies. Jokes that would often be considered incredibly un-PC in the US, are par for the course in Australia. But they’re not meant to be taken in that context. As an American, I will admit I was taken aback by this, at first, but it becomes clear very quickly that this sort of good-natured free-for-all ribbing is standard for everyone. It’s how Australians show their affection for one another. One of the worst things that could happen is if your group of Aussie friends or workmates never have a joke at your expense, whether it be based on your race, gender, educational background, religion, or whatever other instance you can think of. If they didn’t, it probably means they don’t really accept you. Or they think you have to be coddled. Neither are very good. I suspect this is where your friends may have gotten the impression that Australia is not such a great place. Yes, Australians do make quite a lot of inappropriate jokes. But my co-worker’s whiteness and background as someone originally from Great Britain is as fair game as my yellowness and background as someone originally from America.

    Let me put it another way. I have been the recipient of more genuinely racist and other generally offensive comments in the US, then I ever have in Australia. This is not to say that there aren’t any racists in this country. But, then again, I don’t think anyone could say their country is entirely devoid of racists of any kind. I certainly wouldn’t want to be dropped into certain parts of the US, when its inhabitants were completely drunk off their faces and prone to violence, and I’m sure you can think of some parts of the US where that would be the case, as well. This is no different than that. Judging a nation on the actions of a handful of individuals is certainly not applicable, or appropriate.

    Or, if you insist, why not judge a nation on the positive things it has done? Like the apology Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave to the Aboriginal people last year for the Stolen Generations? The Stolen Generations were the Aboriginal children who were taken from their families and placed in foster homes, because of racist policies and beliefs on the part of the federal government, and a general lack of understanding of some aspects of the Aboriginal people and their culture. This went on for over a century, and the government has apologized, offering closure to thousands of Aboriginal people all over Australia. Why not consider that step forward in race relations when you think about individual actions representing where a nation is heading?

    Surely the actions of a group of very drunk, young people should not carry more weight than, for example, the actions of a sober, older man representing the interests and feelings of a nation.

    This is nowhere near the same as Italy’s government-backed, unbelievably discriminatory practices, and to make that comparison is stretching credibility just a tad beyond its limits, wouldn’t you say?

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 4:23 am ¶

41. jo wrote:

    I’ve been in Italy for 11 years now and live about 15 minutes from Lucca; the ban has been a pretty big story here and since I work with an immigrants’ rights association I’ve been following it with particular attention. The actual political motivations behind it have nothing to do with protecting local cuisine or even with immigrant-bashing, in my opinion, although that’s how they’re selling it to people (and of course it’s grotesque that they’re appealing to racism). If you look at the actual text of the decree, it becomes very clear that the idea is to eliminate competition for the owners of more expensive restaurants. They’d already banned pizza-by-the-slice places within the historic part of town a few years back. And it includes a series of requirements like elegant decor, wooden chairs, waiters in recognizable waitperson-garb, etc. that are obviously intended to discourage more informal venues. Basically, it’s the game of milk-the-tourist: if you’re in Lucca for the day that visitors to Tuscany usually spend there, either you plunk down €20 somewhere or you don’t eat lunch, since it’s highly inconvenient to trek outside the historic center to hunt down something cheaper. And if the absence of an affordable sandwich benefits a small but politically powerful group of business owners and is a royal pain in the rear for people who actually live in Lucca and also have to eat lunch, well, too bad. And that’s where selling it to people with “protect our culinary heritage” and “keep out the Arab hoardes” comes in. If they buy it, to some extent they deserve it–Lucca has always been an anomaly in “Red” Tuscany, as a very conservative, money-oriented town–but there are plenty of people who are pissed off. As one guy put it in an online forum I’m in, “they’ve almost finished the job of turning my town into a sterile knick-knack, you shake it and the snowflakes come falling down”.

    Of course there’s the hideous racism factor, except that in this case it’s the means and not the end. Italy is in a dark, dark period right now, would that kebab-banning were the worst of it. But I’m a little hard put to explain the complexities in an online comment… maybe because I’m still a little exhausted from eight years of trying to explain to people here how Americans can be so amazingly stupid in their (our) political choices.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 7:44 am ¶

42. nonogirl wrote:

    Joyce wrote:

    “Or, if you insist, why not judge a nation on the positive things it has done? Like the apology Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave to the Aboriginal people last year for the Stolen Generations? The Stolen Generations were the Aboriginal children who were taken from their families and placed in foster homes, because of racist policies and beliefs on the part of the federal government, and a general lack of understanding of some aspects of the Aboriginal people and their culture. This went on for over a century, and the government has apologized, offering closure to thousands of Aboriginal people all over Australia. Why not consider that step forward in race relations when you think about individual actions representing where a nation is heading?”

    Girl, you are so brainwashed. Is this what it takes to live in a country that doesn’t want you around?

    The most stupid comment I have ever heard to date, revolving around another controversy in our ever-increasingly racist world is:

    “America is great and generous because don’t forget we are the ones who gave Indians land and freed the slaves.”

    The sheer ignorance and nonsensical attitude behind this comment makes me want to .. uh, I don’t know read a book.

    Saying that these “apologies” have given the aborignals closure is ridiculous. There is still clearly a two-class system going on here as most aboriginals are on welfare and there is great job discrimination across the board in Australia.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 1:26 pm ¶

43. Daniel wrote:

    I’ve never been to Italy, but I have been to other parts of Europe and have relatives that lived there for decades.
    With that being said, although I wouldn’t really know what is the real story, it wouldn’t surprised me if Jo’s comment made the most sense. Then there are the other factors people mentioned which I believe also plays a part in this case.

    I also have a similar situation with Australia. Never been there but have relatives…born and raised there, or lived there for decades. Occasional visits there by my other relatives and aquantinces. As far as what I’ve been told, that country seems to be quite laid back. Other than media stories, the main racial problems I’ve heard was some issues they have with blacks…which from what I’ve been told means something slightly different than the States.

    As far as I know, without going there…so my comment can be put under dim a light.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 3:08 pm ¶

44. Daniel wrote:

    I probably should mentioned that my heritage is Chinese. Other than the ones borned in France and Australia, the rest of them were refugess from Vietnam.
    I don’t know if this helps a bit with understanding the perspectives from my family, living in those places.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 3:15 pm ¶

45. Rchoudh wrote:

    With regard to Australia, I’ve heard alot about this laid back blunt attitude towards discussing things people normally try to avoid here in America. I have a relative who completed his primary education in Australia. He said that when learning about Australian history he was shocked to find how blunt the educational system was in describing the way they forcefully took the land from the Aborigines (he remembers reading about the forced expulsions and the killings and this was when he was in elementary school!) Compared to the way I was taught American history as a kid, with the romantic notion of Native Americans and pilgrims sitting down eating Thanksgiving dinner together after time spent working the land, I think it’s safe to say Australians are pretty blunt and straightforward about the more unpleasant facets of life.

    So I can see where Joyce is coming from with regard to Australians’ laid back forthright attitude. However I take issue with having jokes made at my expense over my race, class, sex, religion, etc. If someone doesn’t know me well enough to feel free to joke with me, then why shouldn’t I get offended at them joking about things that characterize me and that I may very well be sensitive about? I don’t agree that just because you’re laid back that you’re free to make fun of me in a way bordering on racism, sexism, etc. that might make me feel extremely uncomfortable.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 8:21 pm ¶

46. Joyce wrote:

    That’s funny, nonogirl.

    The closure line isn’t something I’m just imagining or pulling out of nowhere. I know quite a few Aboriginal people, some directly impacted by the Stolen Generations, and it’s difficult to describe the happiness that was to be seen and felt in their community on the day that apology was given (aka Sorry Day). The battle for a government apology has been something the Aboriginal people have been fighting for decades, for exactly the reason that I stated. They wanted the closure that apology would offer so that they could begin to move on.

    Yes, there are still plenty of issues to deal with between Australians and the Aboriginal people, but most seem to think that’s a step in the right direction. Do everyone a favour and talk to some Aboriginal people about that apology and what it meant before you conclude it’s something completely nonsensical.

    I’m not entirely sure where you got that comment about America being generous, but that strikes me as a pretty ridiculous thing to say. Native Americans were in what would eventually be known as America first, and should have been treated and respected as such.

    I’m not saying that Australia’s a great and generous nation, or anything nearly as preposterous as that. Australia’s a nation with flaws, just like any other nation out there. But the fact that they are acknowledging at least some aspect of what they have done to the indigenous peoples of this country, and not only expressing their regret but actually apologizing in an open and public forum, is certainly not a step back.

    I haven’t done the research, but I would take a stab and say that the US hasn’t done as much for their own indigenous peoples.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 8:23 pm ¶

47. Nelly wrote:

    Joyce wrote:
    “One of the worst things that could happen is if your group of Aussie friends or workmates never have a joke at your expense, whether it be based on your race, gender, educational background, religion, or whatever other instance you can think of. If they didn’t, it probably means they don’t really accept you.”

    I’ve heard this often from people living in Australia or the United Kingdom, that politically incorrect jokes are just “their humor.” Oftentimes, the respondent accuses Americans of being “too sensitive” and trying to impose their country’s racist history on another (similar to some of the reactions that happened after the Olympics photos mocking the Chinese). It’s quite possible that I’m being overly sensitive. But, is “that’s just our way” really an excuse?

    Don’t the power dynamics and colonial history make these things unequal and unseemly? Let’s say a White Australian makes fun of an Aborigine’s race. Are there any jokes the Aborigine can make that has equal weight? I can’t really think of any. How does one “make fun of” Whites in this same way (especially when Whites are treated as individuals, not representatives of their race)? For example, I don’t think “Ha ha White people can be so racist and clueless” holds the same weight as “Native people are unemployed alcoholics.”

    I don’t really see how it’s different from “hipster racism,” which a few posters touched on in the thread on Amy Sedaris. I’m not suggesting that Australia is headed towards fascism. I’m certainly not suggesting that Australians are much more racist than White Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders, etc. I know plenty of non-racist White Australians, but they also don’t make those jokes.

    I guess I’m not convinced that all of those jokes are free of malice. I don’t think any White-dominated country is post-racial enough for those jokes to always be “just jokes.” I know one reason I’m uncomfortable with the assertion that “It’s not racist; it’s just our humor” is because, much more often than not, the speakers have been White Australians or Britons. You are one of the very few people of color I can remember who’s made a similar assertion.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 9:48 pm ¶

48. Joyce wrote:

    A fair point, Nelly, and well-made.

    I would agree with your assessment of some of the attitudes surrounding those sorts of jokes and the context they may show up in. However, I will say there are plenty of ways to make fun of White Australians, as jokes are obviously not restricted to race. For example, Australians give each other a lot of crap about how integral drinking is to the culture (much more so than I’ve seen anywhere else), and their penchant for barbeques, budgie smugglers (aka speedoes), and being bogans (roughly the equivalent of what Americans think of as people who are ah, very rough around the edges).

    Is that the same as joking about, again for example, the high crime rate beginning at young ages amongst many Aboriginal people? No, certainly not. [Although I'm given to understand that, as with most minority groups, there are negative terms for Whites across all Aboriginal language groups, which naturally varies, and I would hazard a guess quite a few of their own jokes which Aboriginal people might share with their White Australian friends.]

    But, then again, in my time here, I haven’t actually heard any jokes at the expense of Aboriginal people. The amount of respect that’s given, if lacking in understanding at times, to Aboriginal culture is still surprising to me, but I don’t see it in a negative light. And steps are being taken to constantly improve awareness and understanding, and to incorporate that into federal policy and the like.

    By no means is Australia anywhere near an ideal, and I certainly can see your point about the imbalance in the power dynamic, and the impact that may have on how many things are received and perceived. I suppose some of what it boils down to is what is considered the norm in a society, and what aspects of a nation’s collective culture would be considered acceptable on a global scale. I don’t think it’s something that’s entirely excusable, but something that makes a little more sense when put in context.

    Do I agree with it? No, not really. But in considering that context, it makes it easier to tolerate, if not to participate in. Besides being phenomenally bad at dishing it out in the first place, I don’t see a need to encourage that sort of behaviour. Most of my friends and coworkers just attribute it to the fact that I’m American, which suits me fine.

    But I will note, any jokes I have had made at my expense here have never been over my race. Funnily, it’s mostly because I’m American, go figure. The really offensive jokes I’ve had aimed at me in my lifetime were almost all generated by “friends” in America. So there is the possibility that’s skewing my perceptions on this front.

    And on a very small sidenote, “Aboriginal people” or “Aboriginal” are the preferred terms. “Aborigine” is like calling a Native-American an “”, there are tribal and negative connotations to the term that most Aboriginal people are not overly fond of. (Also, not tribes, but language groups.)

    Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 11:28 am ¶

49. Nelly wrote:

    Thanks for your response, Joyce, and for your sidenote. I actually went to Wikipedia because I wanted to make sure I was using the term in the correct manner. I mistakenly assumed “Aborigine” and “Aboriginal” had the same connotations.

    I also thought “the Aborigine” could imply pluralization (i.e the Aborigine can mean “the Aborigine people” as a whole, similar to the way people talk about “the Cherokee” or “the Sioux” without any negative connotations). That’s the way I intended to use it in the following question: “Are there any jokes the Aborigine can make that has equal weight?” I guess you can tell I’m a little mixed up about the terms (and my subject-verb agreement was off)!

    Joyce wrote:
    “Aborigine” is like calling a Native-American an “”

    Maybe I’m just thick-headed, but I’m not sure I wholly understand this part. Is it similar to using the phrase “a Jew” (as opposed to a Jewish person) or “a Black” (as opposed to Blacks or a Black person)? If so, I understand. I’m fully aware of the contempt with which those phrases are sometimes spoken.

    Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 3:24 pm ¶

50. Alston Adams wrote:

    I have not read most of the comments here in this thread, but I wanted to make a comparison between local separatists (I am in Montreal) and this thing in a part of Italy. Most francophone separatists would probably support the decision to ban ethnic food in Lucca on the basis that their culture is threatened by outside influences. They see the Quebecois culture as being under assault by the sea of English around them, and support language laws that supposedly protect the French language, if not the culture, from non-French, mainly English influences. (By the way, I don’t necessarily disagree with this, being a bilingual, bicultural anglophone of colour, but that’s a much, much longer discussion better done elsewhere; feel free to email me if you want to know more about my position on the matter).

    So, readers of Racialicious, you might want to consider something: we tend to ridicule any situation where white people feel threatened in their culture, since they have white privilege. I normally agree with this ridicule, especially in a North American context. I don’t know for sure if cultural protectionism is what is happening here, but I just want to point out that the power dynamic appears to be different in this case. We are talking about a very particular local gastronomic culture that is potentially under threat, even though it’s the white, presumably dominant one. Perhaps we should rethink the notion (and I do think that there is the general notion at Racialicious) that white people cannot complain about loss of culture. We did, after all, challenge the idea that whites have no culture. No, wait, that was at Restructure. Anyway.

    Sorry for the disjointed post. It’s late and I haven’t really slept…

    Posted 07 Feb 2009 at 3:56 am ¶

51. gabby wrote:

    especially telling is the last bit of the full article.

    “There is confusion, however, over what is meant by ethnic. Mr Di Grazia said that French restaurants would be allowed. He was unsure, though, about Sicilian cuisine. It is influenced by Arab cooking. ”

    So French food is fine, but they aren’t having anything touched by brown hands. God, the gall of this.

    Posted 07 Feb 2009 at 3:48 pm ¶

52. pololly wrote:

    Gotta jump in for the Europeans here – ‘Europe’ is not like ‘America’. All the countries are completely different and it’s not really fair to tar them all with one brush. Lots of places process race in different ways. That said: the rise of the right wing anti immigrant parties in most of Europe is pretty well documented.

    Also, sorry to be blunt but Australia is a racist hell hole. Do some fact checking on the economic and political status of the ‘brown people’ there. Going to Australia is the worst of both worlds. In America, you are more poor but it’s not ok to call you racial slurs. In many parts of Europe, you are pretty equal economically, but everyone thinks racial slurs are ‘no big deal’. In Australia – people think racial slurs are no big deal AND you live in poverty. You could not pay me to set foot in that country again and my dream is to work in the deep American south.

    Posted 08 Feb 2009 at 7:34 pm ¶

53. pololly wrote:

    Gotta add – this isn’t speculation. I went to Australia and the racist banter was horrific. It was really just racist abuse. I think all the people saying it’s just a joke have drunk the kool-aid. Most of the people seemed to hold terrible views about the aboriginal people and the whole trip was awful.

    I was the only black person there with a bunch of white ‘gap year’ friends and I was the only one for whom it ruined the trip. They laughed it off a bit and were occasionally uncomfortable but for me these people might as well have been carrying burning crosses. They had zero compassion for the Aboriginal people, zero regret over the history – it as like it had never existed, and complete sense of entitlement to just tear people apart. What gives people that sense of over entitlement and total lack of empathy? Well, I can tell you. It’s not an understanding and rejection of white privilege and a desire to be more culturally understanding, I can tell you.

    They were unashamedly rude, racist and it was just a really awful experience. Interestingly enough, it was like the worst of Britishness (a zealous nationalism + alcohol + a neo-colonial superiority complex + an anti ‘political correctness’ attitude) but times 100. Britain at its worst is pretty bad but in Australia, people cheer when you call someone a wog. It’s horrible.

    Posted 08 Feb 2009 at 7:49 pm ¶

54. pololly wrote:

    Oooh, just had a thought. You know what would be really interesting (if it hasn’t been done before) doing a post on how racial prejudice manifests completely differently from (western) country to country. Because Britain, America and Australia are the three English speaking countries that I’ve been to which are racially completely dissimilar, even though they are all quite racist. So interesting.

    Posted 08 Feb 2009 at 8:04 pm ¶

55. Westerly wrote:

    pololly – I live in NZ which has it’s own brand of very problematic racism. Australia is also extremely racist, but then I can’t think of ANY colonial nation that isn’t founded on racism.

    The only people who are smugly praising the ‘antipodes’ are whites and new immigrants of colour who are middle-to-upper class who often have no IDEA of what it is like for indigenous people in these countries. (Out of sight, out of mind.)

    There is what I term as an incredibly rude, unhealthy ‘casual’ racism/sexism which is nothing more than a thinly veiled contempt for ‘the other’ permeates everyday life. It’s in the news, in sports, in popular culture, and in social life. People can be jaw-droppingly racist in a off-the-cuff manner, and are shocked, *shocked* if they are identified as such.

    The assumption of white superiority runs so deeply in NZ and Australia, that there is a ugly complacence to go along with it. They’re not aggressive to the extreme (for the time being) – because all of the ‘necessary’ aggression already took place in the past thus ensuring that future generations don’t have to overtly be thugs and that they can legislate and culturally position themselves into a place dominance.

    All that’s required of whites in these places is that they enjoy the spoils of their ancestors and maintain an attitude that their ideas, mores, culture, custom, and way is the only right and ‘logical’ way to anything while using indigenous culture in a decorative, peripheral fashion in order to lend themselves identity.

    Yes, they might even apologise (and let’s not gloss over the Howard years, or ignore just how LONG it took to even acknowledge that any wrong-doing took place) but the fact that *some* indigenous Australians were moved or even grateful only highlights just how badly they’ve been treated, how low their expectations of mainstream white Australia are, and how little they’ve received.

    White privilege runs rampant in these places – it’s such a deeply normative mind-set that most whites in these places aren’t even *familiar* with the expression, let alone what it means. Hence, why they congratulate themselves for the lowest common denominator. At least we didn’t own slaves/use gas chambers/finger print people etc.

    To which I say – so what?

    Posted 09 Feb 2009 at 3:01 am ¶

56. Joyce wrote:

    Sorry about that, Nelly, it seems the coding in the comments section caught the text I had originally placed in those quotation marks and interpreted it as code of some form. The text that was meant to be between those quotation marks was “insert antiquated racial slur here”, which was my roundabout way of indicating the connotations surrounding “injun” as being similar to that of “Aborigine”.

    Pololly, I’m not entirely sure what kind of Australians you encountered over the course of your trip, but I am surprised that you are applying the actions of those Australians as indicative of the general population, and find the implication that most of the brown people are living in poverty to be quite appallingly incorrect.

    Having worked with, and being acquainted with, Aboriginal people and having acquired some knowledge as to how they are perceived and their circumstances here, I am surprised that you would make such a statement. Most of those I know are employed in stable, well-paying jobs, and are well-respected by their peers, and they are not in the minority. The respect and awareness of Aboriginal culture that seems almost to be a commonality with everyone here, continues to amaze me. I have yet to meet one person here who has ever used a racial slur when referring to an Aboriginal person. This is not to say that they don’t exist, but they are certainly in the minority, or as using it for sensationalist purposes. Yes, there certainly are some who still encounter poverty and discrimination. That’s the case for most people groups, regardless of which country they may be in.

    Interacting with government employees fairly often in my work, I would also like to point out that government departments try very hard to employ Aboriginal people in their departments, openly encouraging it in their advertisements, and also have Equal Employment Opportunity principles in place for both their recruitment as well as their workforce as a whole.

    I am speaking from personal experience, and from having lived in this country for some time, as opposed to just visiting it. Visiting a country inherently poses some problems as it only provides a snapshot of the country, and that, dependent on where you are visiting and the people you interact with. If someone were to visit the US in certain areas, they would probably come away with a very bad image of America and its occupants, and it sounds like this is much the same for you. Again, I’m not saying Australia is perfect, but it is certainly not as flawed as you seem to think it is.

    I feel as though I’m repeating myself, and I’m concerned about how far off-topic this Australia tangent is getting. If you’d like further information, which I’ve already re-hashed somewhat, please refer to my previous comments (#40, 46, and 48).

    Posted 09 Feb 2009 at 3:27 am ¶

57. Baiskeli wrote:

    @daniel

    …Other than media stories, the main racial problems I’ve heard was some issues they have with blacks…which from what I’ve been told means something slightly different than the States.
    

    Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

    Given that little detail, how is racism in Australia not a problem? (or not a problem for asians only)

    A friend of mine whose asian-australian (vietnamese but immigrated to Australia when very young) grew up there and had no problems whatsoever.
    I’m black, and I have relatives who studied there and couldn’t wait to get the eff out. So I guess it might depend on ones ethnicity.

    Posted 09 Feb 2009 at 3:29 pm ¶

58. pololly wrote:

    @Joyce

    It takes me 30 seconds on google to pull up strong evidence against everything you are saying. Which scares me a little bit and should at least discomfort you.

    This is from 2006:

    “According to the 2005 Social Justice Report by Commissioner Tom Calma, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have a lower life expectancy (by 17 years) and their infant mortality rate is three times that of the non-indigenous rate. They are more likely to have chronic and communicable diseases, poorer mental health and more disabilities.

    Their average income is only 62 percent of the non-indigenous rate, their educational standards are lower, they are more likely to be unemployed, they have higher stress rates, poorer access to primary health care and inadequate diets.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/22/australia.aboriginal/index.html

    So clearly the statistics don’t back up the picture that you are attempting to paint. That, to me, is suspicious. You also do something that a lot of Australians did when I was there. You say ‘ well, lots of people groups elsewhere have it bad too’ as if that is fine. That’s a terrible attitude to have. Just because other countries have a poor history does not get Australia off any hook and that level of defensiveness is really disturbing.

    From the same article:

    “Howard is a vigorous opponent of what is known as the “black armband” view of Australia’s past, which he says reflects a belief that most Australian history since 1788 has been “little more than a disgraceful story of imperialism, exploitation, racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination.”

    Howard, who calls the history debate a battle between optimists and apologists, set out his view most forthrightly on November 18, 1996.

    “I take a very different view (to the black armband one). I believe that the balance sheet of our history is one of heroic achievement and that we have achieved much more as a nation of which we can be proud than of which we should be ashamed,” he said.

    Howard acknowledged in 1996 that Aborigines had been treated very badly in the past. “But to tell children who themselves have been no part of it, that we’re all a part of a racist bigoted history is something that Australians reject.”

    Wow. Is that what you would consider ‘coming to terms with their history and giving people closure’? And bear in mind that a 1991 National report by the Sydney Human Rights Commission found, only five years earlier, that “Racist violence against Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders is endemic, nation-wide and very severe.”

    http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:VcjLeEdBlKcJ:www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/doc/racediscrimcomm_1.pdf+aboriginal+australia+racist+harassment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

    So in response to some highly publicized racist incidents an inquiry was launched and found severe endemic racist violence and harassment.The PM says a few years later that the present generation is not racist at all and should stop feeling bad for ‘the past’ basically. And Aboriginal people are still statistically very disadvantaged. And I went there and heard racist comments against black and brown people. But you have never heard any negative racist comment or insult. Ever.

    The thing is – you and Nathan are defending a huge standard of living gap by saying that ‘other countries are just as bad’, giving credence to a half hearted formal apology over a real commitment to end harassment and discrimination, dismissing racial assaults as one off incidents and indicative of nothing, and attempting to deny the existence of the well documented, well known tendency to use racist, sexist and homophobic comments as ‘banter’, even when it has been experienced by people on this board. In other words, if you are the example of anti-racists in Australia, the proposition that Australia is a pretty racist country doesn’t really need my impassioned defense, does it?

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 5:06 am ¶

59. Nathan wrote:

    (Many apologies for the length in advance!)

    Yes, Pololly, there is a standard of living gap that is tragically significant between white Australians and the Aboriginal people, concentrated especially in the more rural communities (as distinct from those that live in the capital cities that have, by virtue of proximity, far greater access to government aid programs like health care and employment support). This is not something swept under the rug, but one of the major planks of the current government’s electoral campaign is; the effort to Close The Gap, between the two. It is very difficult, as a great many Aboriginal settlements that exist are in areas of the Northern Territory and extremely rural areas (in a nation with an urban living rate well over 90%) of Western Australia and Queensland that exist for Traditional reasons as opposed to having any economic rationale. So we are trying to close the gap, but this is not an easy task, at all.

    If you ever look at a map of Australia, the Kimberley regions, which have a large Aboriginal population, is a long, long way from any of the capital cities and, as a result, a long, long way from the best health care and universities. Its not like we can just plonk down copies of Princess Magaret Hospital every few hundred km out there.

    It is important to understand that when I say Australia is over 90% urban, that is focussed almost entirely on the eight capital cities of the States and Territories, and that the distances between are vast. We’re essentially talking about trying to support a dozen Native American settlements in New Mexico when your nearest source of decent healthcare is in Seattle and the largest settlement in between has less than 20,000 people. Rural does not mean what it does in the US, and it is not the thickly woven patchwork of towns and villages of continental Europe.

    Even so, there is a broad consensus in the community to work on this, as evidenced when Kevin Rudd’s ALP took power under, among other planks, that prospect, and the prospect of the national apology (which was delivered).

    But even so, the very article you quoted made the admission that conditions even then were improving, so we were making headway in closing the gap. And now we’ve stepped up the effort. Yes, the actions that led to the development of the problem were shameful, but not even, by your own link, the head of the Liberal Party shied from admitting that. And yes, as Rchoudh pointed out, we grow up studying what was done to the Aboriginal people.

    This is a problem Australians are aware of and that Australians are addressing in increasing depth.

    Also, could everyone please stop conflating the Aboriginal people and people of African origin. African immigrants and refugees and the Aboriginal people are very distinct ethnic groups, not one lump of ‘brown people’ for easy tagging. African-Australians are a mix of immigrants (which are typically on the average standard of living) and Sudanese refugees, which Immigation takes pains to set up self-sufficiently in society and are thus supported to the average standard of living. Grouping them only as ‘brown people’ simply shows that you need to look more closely at the Australian racial landscape and step back from your European or American models.

    As far as defensiveness goes, considering the topic of Australia started with a drive by article from a UFO-loving news site comparing a racially-motivated riot where people were shamefully roughed up, to KRISTALLNACHT (maybe we should call Godwins on that?), this blog and its comments section has given any Australian readers a lot to get our backs up over. I mean, lets see, “Arkansas with an accent” (just as an aside, being considered just another American state is about as infuriating and imperialist as you’re going to get), “racist hellhole”, “you’re brainwashed”, “you’re delusional”, “how typical”.

    Yes, pololly, we’re feeling fairly defensive right about now. It becomes very hard to take a step back here, because the conversation started from such a skewed point. I personally couldn’t help but feel that this was reflexive condemnation from people who abused first and then cherry picked from articles second. How are we supposed to find anywhere to give ground or come to the middle when we start from the proposition that the entire nation thinks of Asian immigration as the Nazi’s thought of their Jewish population? How can I not be defensive in this situation?

    Anecdotal stories, second and third hand were used as iron clad proof that we’re all a nation just out to get any non-Anglo-Saxons, from people who don’t live here, and at most made short visits and can’t even appreciate the difference between Aboriginal people and African migrants or between the party of John Howard the deposed Prime Minister and the ALP of Kevin Rudd who became Prime Minister with a new direction?

    I know there are problems. I know it has been difficult for Aboriginal people, and at times other immigrant groups, to get a fair shake. That the national idea of a fair go, and as the cricket team espouses, playing Hard but Fair, has been a bit elusive for all folks. But does anyone honestly expect anyone with even a modicum of battered national pride to sit here and agree with a thread that has leveled these accusations at Australia?

    Thirty minutes of the first return episode of the Good News Week show did more to convince me there’s still a problem to be addressed than any of your comments.

    I mean, you yourself, Pololly, went to an article to from three years ago about the ex-PM who lost the first time the ALP found a candidate who wasn’t a) a no-hoper (”Bomber” Beazley) or b) the most feral, foul-mouthed political mongrel ever seen in the nation’s political history (”Mark Latham”). These are different political parties and there are real differences between them and it does matter. The two main parties are somewhat akin to the Republicans and Democrats, if each of them stood up and took a big step to their left, with a number of much further left parties beyond the ALP flank. The one openly anti-immigration party that has formed in the past couple decades found itself, after an initial strong vote that put it on the scene in Queensland, absolutely destroyed by all other segments of the political and public scene. This is the party of Paul Keating, who was the one who took up the cause of the Stolen Generations and brought it to the national agenda. Brought undone soon thereafter by a recession, the Libs took over, and it took the party a decade to recover (something not uncommon for Australian politics). The new PM, Kevin Rudd, did issue that national apology for the Stolen Generations, keeping it firmly in the national consciousness, and is continuing the work to close the gap.

    These things matter! Just because you live in a Western country doesn’t mean you automatically know everything about another Western country. Don’t the Americans here get frustrated when other people assume they know all there is to know about the US? Don’t the Europeans here get frustrated when people from the US make in depth assumptions about Europeans? Australia was forged through its own unique set of pressures, challenges and immigrationary waves and we shouldn’t be dismissed as perpetrators of a new “Kristallnacht” or “Arkansas with an accent” (as if people from the US don’t have their own accents) based on stereotyped assumptions, stories and projected paradigms.

    And stating that we have more as a nation to be proud of than ashamed of is not a suprising thing for a nation that has long had cause for a brooding resentment against the UK over the crap they’ve dealt us through the years and the blood we’ve had to put on the altar for the UK and the US. But those statements, quite patently did not stop attempts to improve the conditions for the Aboriginal people, because Howard had been in for several years by the time of the article you quoted and, as the article stated, conditions were on the uptick despite the enormity of the logistical challenges.

    Yes, we have problems, yes, a large section of the Aboriginal community continues to live in dire straits. Yes, we are helping them.

    No, Australia does not deserve to be compared to the Nazis or dismissed as some indemnic racist hellhole.

    Terribly sorry about the length of this, dear readers, but it didn’t lend itself well to being condensed.

    (By the by, where in Australia did you go, Pololly? I can’t imagine I’m living a sheltered life in the middle southern suburbs of Perth, but for the life of me, I can’t think of where you would receive that kind of treatment.)

    Posted 10 Feb 2009 at 10:20 pm ¶