Over the last few weeks, we have witnessed two significant political issues referencing race relations in Australia.

Although Australian Police have released statements indicating that no unusual crime rates existed specifically relating to the Sudanese community, the issue has again brought attention to what we define as our ‘Australian Way of Life’. The diversity of Australian society is regularly emphasised through generalised symbols of multiculturalism. These symbols are especially well employed at times when the eyes of the international community are turned upon us, and operate to create a well-tailored image of our national identity. I refer to such obvious examples such as the Sydney Olympics, where Australia’s multiculturalism and Indigenous history were celebrated in order to project a specific image of Australia to the world. More recently, such projection was used during the APEC meeting, as Howard and Bush appeared on television watching a group of Indigenous people perform for APEC delegates. Considering a number of Indigenous people in Australia live in extreme poverty and describe the current situation of Indigenous people as a result of genocide, the performance was conveniently symbolic at such a time in our history.

Whilst Howard admits that he has previously made mistakes regarding Indigenous affairs, and plans to bring a “new reconciliation” to Australia, recent policy decisions indicate that such rhetoric now demands substantial political action. Just over a month ago, the Howard Government refused to sign the United Nations International Declaration On The Rights of Indigenous Peoples; a declaration designed to protect the human, land and resource rights of indigenous people around the world, as well as create a global standard of legally enforceable human rights for such peoples. The declaration was non-binding, and perhaps viewed by Howard as an act too symbolic for his authority. Whilst it is positive that the situation of indigenous people has momentarily become a focus of media and political interest, it is of great concern that such sensitive issues of racial and cultural identity within Australian society are being so flippantly and symbolically manipulated in the run up to the next election.

The recent focus upon disturbance in the Sudanese community has once again highlighted the political gamesmanship that surrounds such ‘racial tensions’.   So close to an election, doubt surrounding the legitimacy of Andrew’s remarks continues to circulate. Not only have the accusations of increased levels of violence not been backed up by police, but at the time of writing, evidence surrounding these remarks has not been legitimised by Mr Andrews himself. The use of words such as ‘violence’, ‘core-values’, and ‘refugee’ is reminiscent of the 2001 ‘Children Overboard’ incident, an event which subsequently generated a marked increase in support for the Howard government. This time the Sudanese didn’t ‘jump the queue’, they just didn’t ‘fit in’. In other words, they failed to ‘assimilate’.

The assumption that logically follows from such statements, and the language employed within, is that if Australian values are violated by migrants, the values of the culture from which they came must somehow exist in opposition to our own. It’s simple. Australia = Peaceful. Sudanese don’t understand this, and therefore violate our way of life, therefore, Sudan does not share the same values of peacefulness. Once again, we see symbolic language used to label groups that differ from the white majority to suggest that, in some way, they do not share our ‘core values’; values that are in fact more specific to global human rights than an Australian Way of Life.

The danger of this attractive rhetoric, typified by Mr Andrews comments, lies in the ripples of hatred, fear and uncertainty that flow through our communities as a result. Such comments appear to successfully address the insecurities of some Australians, with increased violence and division their natural outcomes. Moreover, as products of either political or media influence, they certainly do not reflect the multicultural banner that we so proudly fly.

The supposed difficulty that refugees and other cultures have in adopting or adapting to the ‘Australian Way of Life’ is difficult to measure. When refugees arrive in Australia, they come from unimaginable situations often seeking protection from crimes committed by people who will most likely remain unaccountable. The expectation that they will assimilate into a mono-cultural nation is a far cry from the supposed multicultural society we live in. Has assimilation, a term terribly abused in the days of The White Australia Policy, replaced multiculturalism? Or, have assimilation and multiculturalism, along with the promises of recognition and pre-electoral race politics, merely become symbols created and used to entice a reaction? Could it be that the straight shooting government of John Howard has been acting symbolically more often then they would like to admit?

Display 1 of 1 comments