Monday, December 12th, 2005
Yesterday on TV we were shown racist attacks on Lebanese men at Cronulla Beach, Sydney. The fact that the media had spread the story and inflamed it before showing up to film the violence was bad enough. But to hear Australians talk about it today you’d think we were living in a multicultural paradise.
Was racism behind the attacks on Lebanese men at Cronulla? John Howard says that this behaviour is unacceptable but earnestly tells us that Australia does not have a problem with racism. We have politicians telling us that it was alcohol that made this happen. Talkback callers start by saying they’re not racist but go on to make blanket statements about these Lebanese people who are behaving badly and need to be pulled into line.
Such denial of racism reveals a disturbing lack of self awareness. Having lived in Australia for five years I’ve heard a lot about being multicultural. We have many cultures living here. That’s about as far as it goes. I have met very few white adults who have any interest in the language or customs of other ethnic groups. In the Uniting Church we talk about multicultural churches as the ones who are made up of ethnic migrant groups. They’re the ones who must make the effort to maintain their ethnic identity in a predominantly British Australian culture. The majority of Australians have no need to engage with the ‘other’.
I like what Leslie writes at Singular Existence in reference to Anne Jacobsen’s now infamous blog post on a fearful encounter with Syrians flying with her on a Northwest Airlines flight.
Most of us don’t like to think of ourselves as racists. It conjures up visions of angry men in white sheets burning crosses on people’s front lawns. We like to think we are better than that. We like to think we judge people for what they do, not what they are. But the fact is, we’re all racists.
White, black, red, yellow, burning crosses or not, race provides the context for our perception of the world around us, particularly where other races are concerned. If we’re smart, we acknowledge our inherent racism and filter our observations accordingly to ensure they are not too tainted. We second-guess and sometimes third-guess ourselves. But we make mistakes. And when we do, we’re ashamed.
If we’re stupid, however, we refuse to acknowledge our inherent racism. We protest vehemently that we are “tolerant” individuals and dredge up endless examples of pleasant interactions with members of other races as proof positive that that ugly “racist” label doesn’t apply here, no sirree.
But it is this refusal to acknowledge our racism that perpetuates it. After all, if it wasn’t racism that led her (Anne) to believe that fourteen innocent Muslims were undercover terrorists, that must mean that she was justified in her belief. Which, in turn, means that it’s not racist to draw negative aspersions about strangers simply because of their race, creed, or color. Which means that it’s okay to do it next time as well.
Tags: Australia, racism
Posted in Reconciliation | 5 Comments »
Friday, June 24th, 2005
Reported in the Age this week is the sentencing in the trial of Pentecostal Christian pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot. Judge Michael Higgins, of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, yesterday ordered Christian group Catch the Fire Ministries, Mr Scot and Mr Nalliah to publish apologies for comments made at a Melbourne seminar in March 2002, and in a newsletter and website article. Apparently they have vowed to go to jail rather than paying up to $68,690 to advertise in the local newspapers their public apologies for vilifying Muslims.
According to the Age article, Mr Nalliah called Victoria’s religious vilification law “sharia (Islamic) law by stealth”, “a foul law” and invalid, while Mr Scot said: “You don’t compromise truth for fear of jail.”
What’s at stake here?
Vilification
Anti-vilification laws are designed to keep a society free from vindictive hate-inducing behaviour that paints whole groups as vile or worthless. They are a response to what we have hopefully learned from the experiences of Nazi Germany, the Salem witch trials, and the anti-communist hunts of the McCarthy-era USA. Each of these waves of hatred started out in an atmosphere of fear. Hitler extermination policy capitalised on the German fear of Jewish, homosexuals, Gypsies, mentally and physically disabled, Gypsies, Jehovahs Witnesses, Social Democrats, trade unionists, Communists and Soviet prisoners of war. In the 1950s the United States were swept up in a wave of paranoia associated with the fear of communism in the house next door.
Who are these terrorists?
Right now we are experiencing a newly found fear of terrorism focused on the Muslim people, largely kicked off by the last ten years of Al Quaeda violence. We overlook the years of Irish and British terrorism. The years of Jewish terrorism. Years of ETA in Spain. Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. The bombing of the Oklahoma Building by American white supremacists. The lynching of African Americans by the white (often Christian) Klu Klux Klan members.
Free Speech
I’m reading a number of Christian bloggers bemoaning the threat to free speech, claiming they’ll no longer be able to proclaim the truth in their churches. There’s a fear that the anti-vilification laws will prevent a critique of other religions.
The truth’s a lot more than what’s wrong with someone else. Yes speaking the truth should be marked honesty. But that honesty should be one of care for accuracy, humility and self control. We should be aware of the impact of our words.
Over at Postkiwi’s Generations in Conversation this week I posted a review of Paula Harris’ article on postmodernism in the book, Postmission.
Paula Harris writes that Christians in mission must answer the accurate critique that Christianity provided the metanarratives for slavery, womens� oppression, apartheid, the Jewish Holocaust, the cultural genocide of indigenous people, the Crusades, and stolen generations. Apologetics for Harris is not just a matter of being right. It’s also about being humble enough to be wrong. She asks, “Am I holding my understanding of the gospel with humility? Does my faith express itself in gentleness, kindness, concern for justice?”
Tags: Islam, racism
Posted in Australia, Culture, Politics, Reconciliation, Theology, World Events | 3 Comments »
Thursday, April 7th, 2005
I worked with a group of denominational leaders from the Methodist Pacific Council earlier this week. Our brief was to look at cultural icons for clues to the ways we might engage with popular culture. These people were from networks in Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, New Zealand and Australia.
Australian Identity
We began with a Qantas three minute television commercial based on Peter Allen’s song, I still call Australia home. This was the first in a series, filmed in 1997, featuring spots around the world alongside Australian scenery. Our reflection was on the sense of Australian identity developed only as people leave their home and come back again. The video was directed by Geoff Dixon for Mojo Sydney and is available to see online at Duncans TV
Australian Humour
The next advertisements came from the Bundaberg Polar Bear campaign. There are four of these available online at bungabergrum.com.au The first we looked at was the Refreshing Lime ad featuring a polar bear in a helicopter dropping cold water on two parched mates. The second featured a polar bear in a tree dropping down on cue as the boys chatted up the female tourists in the camping ground.
We talked about the perceived preoccupations in popular culture with staying cool, mateship and of course sexuality. We considered the sense of humour that used a polar bear as the mascot of a drink made in sub tropical region. This was the same sense of humour that led to tall men being called Shorty, bald men being called Curly and redheads being called Bluey.
Australian Larrikins
The third section introduced the larrikin concept.
The Hahn Premium Light advertisement, Sex Bomb was considered the funniest advertisement of 2004 in Australia. It begins with a sensuous ambience, with a woman walking to her spa and slipping into the bubbles. Out of nowhere drops the guy with his Hahn Premium Light beer. What?, he says in response to her shocked face. The ad, directed by Paul Middleditch and available to view at Duncans TV, encouraged men to drink responsibly without losing their sense of humour.
We reflected on the challenge of connecting with people who at present have no interest in the church as it is. Major points of tension included the wowser/larrikin contrast. Since the temperance movement of the nineteenth century, many of the Christian churches in Australia have had a tacit agreement that alcohol will not be consumed in connection with their gatherings. Another point of tension was varying attitudes toward sexuality and humour. The Christian church is not seen as a friendly environment for Australian blokes.
We looked at TV advertisement for Lipton Ice Tea, based on a beach. A surfer walks up to two sunbathing babes and frankly tells them he’s come to have a close up look to see if they’re good looking or not. They tell him honestly that they’ve already checked him out and decided they’re not interested, though they will play along just in case he’s rich. They tell him he’d look better if he sucked his stomach in more. He tells them he’s off to see two topless girls further up the beach. The ad finishes with the line, Be Yourself Naturally. We discussed the Australian admiration for frankness. The ad is online at Duncans TV.
We considered the fact that the ad was introducing an overseas product into Australia, appealing to the Australian psyche. This has a parallel with the attempts of the Christian church to contextualize the Christian gospel.
Australian Prejudice
Our last TV ad was Saatchi & Saatchi United Nations ad, Bad Mouth. An Aboriginal man, a Muslim man, an Asian woman, a Lebanese man, a Jewish man, and an effeminate man each vilify people of their own sort. The finishing text: It doesn’t make sense coming out of their mouths. Does it make sense coming out of yours? We talked about multicultural identity in Australia, recognizing that Australian popular culture is only now coming to terms with the changes in immigration implemented in the 1960s through to 1980s. Until the middle of the twentieth century the federal government pursued a White Australia policy, which in effect excluded people who could not easily blend into a culture dominated by white British values and appearance. The ad is online at Duncans TV.
The Uniting Church in Australia included people who had fought to have the White Australia policy lifted. Multicultural diversity was named as a key part of the values being developed at national, regional and local levels. At the same time it was proving to be difficult to move beyond a multi-ethnic approach in which the English speaking part of the Church continued to operate without much impact from other cultures. Representatives at the Monday gathering wondered why there were not Aborigine or Pacific Island representatives at the gathering. It was acknowledged that structural participation took the Church so far but that friendships needed to be built up at every level. It was difficult to develop a consistent partnership with the Aborigine people when there was no single language or political entity shared by all Aborigine and Islander people. Australia has a reputation for being a place in which different ethnic groups can live in peace, particularly in the major cities. However there is a long way to go in the development of a truly multicultural identity in which white Australians learn to engage with the cultures of their fellow Australians.
We talked about the reality that there are many Australian identities being developed. Traditionally even urban Australians have looked to the bush and the digger for their sense of national pride. Now Australia is developing a wide range of media in which women are valued, different ethnic groups are highlighted, and people of various generations are acknowledged. The Uniting Church in Australia faces the challenge of relating to the ever changing mix of contexts in each region.
It was asked if the Uniting Church had engaged with television advertising. Pentecostal groups had engaged with television programming that was aimed at people engaging with product - be that healing or prosperity. Christian Television Association had taken a documentary approach in which people could engage with faith through education. Engaging with a television culture would lead people to consider carefully the aspects of the gospel that could be highlighted, but also the aspects that could be left behind. For example, radical counter-cultural discipleship that did not promise benefits would not do down easily in a consumerist environment.
Continuing Conversion
We finished with a look at Darrell Guder’s book, The Continuing Conversion of the Church, Eerdmans, 2000. Guder reminds us that failing to take the risk of translation amounts to sin. We should follow God’s lead in inculturating the gospel.
Mission is to be a continuing process of translation and witness, whereby the evangelist and the mission community will discover again and again that they will be confronted by the gospel as it is translated, heard and responded to, and will thus experience ongoing conversion while serving as witness.
Tags: alcohol, beer, Bundaberg, contextualisation, Darrell Guder, Hahn, Mission, Pacific, Qantas, racism, Uniting Church
Posted in Advertising, Australia, Mission, TV Ads, Theology | 2 Comments »
