BY SARAH STEPHEN
Racist prejudice is alive and well in Australia. Just cast a glance
at the letters in tabloid newspapers, or listen to a few minutes of the
shock-jocks' talk-back radio. People judge others according to their national
origin and the colour of their skin. Now, religion has become intertwined
with race. John Pilger calls it xeno-racism; Robert Manne uses the term
Islamophobia.
It has been rearing its head most notably after September 11 and the
Bali bombing. Australians from Muslim and Arab backgrounds have been physically
and verbally abused, they have faced employment discrimination, their houses
have been graffitied, Mosques have been burnt and vandalised.
This was not entirely a spontaneous and automatic reaction to the terrorist
attacks. It has been consciously and deliberately fed by governments and
the compliant media. Xenophobic arguments are used to buttress pre-existing
racist prejudices that are still, in a broad way, reinforced by the shape
of global inequality.
``Arab’’ has replaced ``wog’’ as the most common term of derision. ``FOB’’
(Fresh off the Boat) is a schoolyard taunt peculiar to Australia, drawn
from the racist and xenophobic hysteria whipped up by governments and media
following the Tampa standoff.
In a February article titled ``The Murdoch Effect’‘, Pilger wrote about
the ``children overboard'' lie: ``The main route for these lies and xeno-racism
has been the Australian media. Those journalists now complaining about
the government's `outrageous deceit' have yet to admit the part they have
played in the false hysteria that has clearly hardened public attitudes
towards the refugees.''
The current hysteria builds on racist prejudice which has been cultivated
since the first Gulf War in 1991, and is fundamentally intertwined with
the new war drive today. Governments don’t win domestic support for oppressive
wars through rational argument and presentation of facts; they ultimately
rely on the dehumanisation and demonisation of the ``enemy’’.
The terms Muslim, Arab and ``Middle-Eastern appearance’’ have all been
used interchangeably by the government and media for some time, to the
point where each label evokes the same reaction among many people: they
have become synonymous with terrorism.
The idea of ``Western civilisation under siege'' is key to US President
George Bush's current war drive. The pseudo-scientific theories of racial
superiority once relied on by the Western colonialists have been widely
discredited. So new theories to explain the dominance of the imperialist
nations have been invented.
Generally the ``whiter'' nations still rule the ``darker'' nations.
Theories of cultural superiority allow for the racial exceptions, the ``blacks''
who have made it into the imperialist ruling classes or the Asian immigrants
who outscore their peers of European origin in the HSC and its equivalents.
Yet xeno-racism can justify the hugely disproportionate ``collateral
damage'' of the war on Afghanistan, where more civilians were killed than
died in the World Trade Center attacks.
How can you sell the 1.6 million civilian casualties resulting from
the decade-long economic embargo on Iraq without the racist idea that the
life of a Middle Eastern person, an Arab, is worth much less than that
of a Westerner?
Prime Minister John Howard has relied heavily on racism throughout his
seven years in government. Just consider the government’s accommodation
of the views espoused by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party, and Howard’s
deliberate manipulation of the refugee issue following the Tampa
standoff.
Howard defended Hanson as giving an ``accurate reflection of what people
feel’’. He stood by while she shifted public opinion with racist scapegoating.
Howard took advantage of the further polarisation of political opinion
in his favour. His government adopted Hansonism, implementing her policies
to attack both Indigenous people and refugees.
Having made maximum use of the fear of a nation under siege by an “enemy
within”, Bush has the majority of US citizens behind his plans for a war
on Iraq. Using the same anti-terrorism hysteria, Howard is trying hard
to win a majority to supporting Australia’s involvement in that war. He
has a harder battle. The Australian population is not convinced that this
war is necessary, nor that Iraq has anything to do with al Qaeda.
The Howard government is hoping that the heightened fears after the
Bali bombings and a supposedly greater threat of an attack within our borders
may start to shift public opinion. Judging by the huge mobilisations across
the country over the weekend of November 30-December 1, he has a big job
to do.
In its call for people to be vigilant and keep an eye out for suspicious
behaviour, the government didn’t say “keep a lookout for Arabs and Muslims”.
It didn’t need to. That theme started popping up straight away, with a
suggestion on Sydney talk-back radio on November 21 that each Australian
should “monitor a Muslim”.
“Respectable”, moderate political leaders rarely mouth the words themselves,
but they give tacit support to those who do, like Howard when he refused
to immediately rule out arch-reactionary NSW MP Fred Nile’s provocative
call for Muslim women to be banned from wearing the chador.
Chairperson of the Australian Arabic Council Roland Jabbour said in
a media release: “rather than condemning the comments outright, [Howard]
chose to wait 24 hours, letting the issue gather momentum. Why the delay?
Was Mr Howard waiting to see if the Rev Nile was justified in his crusade?”
It was a replay of Howard's response to Pauline Hanson: “I don't have
a clear response to what Fred has put”, Howard said on November 21, but
“Fred speaks for the views of a lot of people”. The following day, having
gauged the fall-out, Howard clarified that he didn't think you could legislate
to tell people what they could and couldn't wear.
Xeno-racism does more than help governments win elections. A government
which can spread racist prejudice is a government which can convince us
to go to war with another country, it can declare war on civil liberties
in the name of a “war on terrorism”, it can destroy social services and
say that refugees and migrants are bludging off the system. It breaks down
the natural bonds of human solidarity, and breeds suspicion and hostility.
In dividing us, the government destroys our ability to fight back.
From Green Left Weekly, December 4, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.
