Friday, March 28, 2014

Aly on the RDA

I quite like Waleed Aly's column on the RDA controversy.  He argues that making the standard that of "the ordinary reasonable Australian" effectively makes it a white standard:
This matters because – if I may speak freely – plenty of white people (even ordinary reasonable ones) are good at telling coloured people what they should and shouldn’t find racist, without even the slightest awareness that they might not be in prime position to make that call.

This is particularly problematic with the proposed offence of racial “intimidation”. To “intimidate” is “to cause fear of physical harm” according to the draft Act. Now our ordinary reasonable white person is being asked to tell, say, black people whether or not they are “reasonably likely” to be fearful of physical harm. Black people – reasonable ones – might actually be fearful, but ultimately a hypothetical white person will decide that for them.
Heh.  Let's not forget the most belligerent white blogging promoter of full repeal of s18C, Sinclair Davidson, claimed this in relation to an aboriginal man
Actually, no. Calling a man an 'ape' is not racist and not demeaning. Rude, yes. Unnecessary, yes. poor behaviour, yes.
He copped a lot of criticism about this, even from white right wing sympathisers; and given that he's from South Africa, it was all the more extraordinary. 

[Deletion, pending further research.]

And only yesterday, he wrote this about those annoying "community groups" who don't want the Act amended:
The elected government of the Commonwealth of Australia is the leadership of the largest community group in the country – also the only community group that actually enjoys widespread legitimacy. 
Shorter version:   "Suck it up, Jewish community groups.  You've lost."

He had already denied there could be friendship with those who support s.18C:
 This is a fork in the road. Those who choose to walk down the path of 18C must do so alone, without the comfort and friendship of those of us who choose freedom over slavery.
Which I reckon would strike most people as an extremely immature attitude.  But then again, this is a man who gets a big thrill from Judge Dredd.   Let's face it - libertarianism is a philosophy that attracts the immature, and those with limited empathy.  (On the empathy question, how else can you interpret a fondness for labelling a large section of society "moochers".)

Now, I am not arguing that he is a racist - and I haven't noticed anyone allege that against him.   What I am saying though is that his philosophy gives him a particularly acute tin ear when it comes to questions of what other people should find as racism or offensive on the grounds of race.   This is also tied up with his ironic way of seeking to deflect attacks by revelling in them (he frequently celebrates having been called an evil bald fascist gnome, for example.)   The fact that he readily bans his critics at his own blog shows that he's not as immune to attacks as he likes to pretend he is.   But his theory seems to be that everyone should take on criticism the way he does - put on a show of laughing it off (even though it does hurt or annoy you); don't think of yourself as a victim - that's a sign of weakness.   Yet, of course, he has been one of the biggest public (and private, I assume) hand holders of the most vocal "I'm a victim" claimant of all in this matter - Andrew Bolt.

Anyway, back to Aly, who ends his column this way:
I have no doubt the Abbott government doesn’t intend this. It doesn’t need to. That’s the problem. This is just the level of privilege we're dealing with. This is what happens when protection from racism becomes a gift from the majority rather than a central part of the social pact. It’s what happens when racial minorities are required to be supplicants, whose claims to social equality are subordinate to those of powerful media outlets outraged they might occasionally have to publish an apology.

And it’s what happens when lawmakers and the culturally empowered proceed as though ours is a society without a racial power hierarchy simply because they sit at the top of it.
Well said.

Update:  the Catallaxy warrior and self proclaimed former friend of Jews seems to think that by talking about a white majority often not having the best idea of what racial minorities may find insulting, Aly is acting in breach of s18C.

Pity he ignores 18D.  Or rather - typical. 

Also the irony.   As I have argued, Davidson himself gives credence to Aly's argument that white folk sometimes don't have a clue.

7 comments:

Sinclair Davidson said...

I would be most grateful if you would either provide a link or remove this paragraph "If I recall correctly, somewhere in Catallaxy, Davidson has also criticised Jews who have a "victim mentality" over the Holocaust. This occurred in a thread somewhere, and I can't be bothered searching. If he or anyone else recalls more precisely what he was saying, you can put it in comments."

Sinclair Davidson said...

Thank you.

Steve said...

Well, given I keep forgetting how to do a search through Catallaxy threads, I'll modify the post.

I'm pretty sure it was actually in an exchange I had with you, but I'll have to dig around. I can see how this may be a disputed interpretation of what you said, given my precise recollection is not clear.

Sinclair Davidson said...

I have done an extensive search using both the internal search engines and google. I can't find anything like that.

Steve said...

Thread located: the discussion was about Jews and "out-suffering", a phrase you introduced, and which I have remembered as close to "victim mentality".

It starts here:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/04/13/pell-media-beat-up/comment-page-1/#comment-457126

about Pell's dubious comments about the Holocaust and Germans suffering after the war, and ends with me saying:

"Hmmm. I can’t bring myself to fault Jews on the grounds that they want to claim to have “out suffered” others if it is someone else (like Pell) bringing up a pretty spurious example of compensatory suffering in the first place."

and you saying:

"No – this ‘out-suffering’ is disgusting."


Funny, but it doesn't strike me as wildly off the mark to call that a criticism of Jews who carry a "victim mentality".

I could have made it clearer that I was not saying that you used the words "victim mentality".

I will add - I was not able to see all of the page of Sack's book to which you referred in the thread. I can see one line in it on Google books which reads "Despite this, no Jewish thinker prior to modernity saw suffering as a source of Jewish identity."

And I see from other things he has said on the net that he talks about the inappropriateness of "victim mentality". There's a Youtube here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p_fCXCa98s

I think I have shown enough to justify my original paragraph.

John said...

Andrew Bolt's recent taking a day off because of a comment made about him is tops for "out suffering". Some warrior they got there.

nottrampis said...

wow,
Fancy Sinclair being unable to do basic research?