Chinese person racist against another Chinese person. I dunno what to think.

Sheeeeet. Man, I just don't know what's funny and what's offensive anymore. Context, irony, satire, political correctness... I need to factor in all these things before I decide whether to laugh or not. No wonder fart jokes are so popular and timeless: they are simple and to the point. No such thing as an ironic fart.

Anyway, that's a roundabout way to say that I'm not sure whether this clip is offensive or not. It probably is.


So that's Sam Pang, on Santo, Sam & Ed's Sports Fever last week, impersonating Chinese-American basketball star Jeremy Lin. Pang is a half-white, half-Chinese Australian.

Why is this offensive? Well, it's rehashing a litany of dumb stereotypes. Pang's accent is a ridiculous mish-mash of Chinese and Japanese accents, despite Jeremy Lin being born in California.

On the other hand...

Given that Pang's portrayal of Lin is so ridiculously stupid, is it actually non-offensive in some hipsterish ironic way? If I conclude that Pang is doing some stupid racist ish here, does that just mean that I don't get it? Am I as dumb as all the people who read my blog but get angry simply because they can't tell when I'm being serious and I'm being tongue-in-cheek? (And yes, there are a lot of them.) Is he making fun of Asian stereotypes, rather than rehashing them?

I'll confess: I have a lot of time for Sam Pang and his various endeavors into radio and television. He's a likable character, and I'm inclined to look favorably on him. That said, I didn't think this skit was funny. Well, I did chuckle at the DDR reference, I admit. But aside from that, it was kinda dumb.

But then again... that's the kind of show Sports Fever is. A LOT of its jokes are extremely lame, and the hosts know it. That their joke success rate is so poor is actually one of the appealing things about the show, if you can understand that; Pang and co-hosts Santo Cilauro and Ed Kavallee seem to enjoy looking stupid in the pursuit of jokes that were only half-funny to begin with.

Here's another way to look at it: Pang is sending up not Jeremy Lin and his Asian-ness... but instead the hype that has surrounded the first Asian-American NBA star. Linsanity, fortune-cookie-flavoured "Lin-sanity" ice cream, and the mindless stereotypes that have been floating around since his emergence. So is it those stereotypes that Pang is making fun of?

So perhaps the skit was not so dumb after all... rather, it was so meta that some of you cats just didn't get it.

Or maybe it was just indeed dumb and racist. I'd welcome your thoughts.

A couple more questions for your pondering:

• If we accept that Pang is making fun of stereotypes rather than making fun of Asians... does that mean the audience are laughing at the same thing? It is quite possible that many people watching do not see any layer of irony and just find it funny to laugh at Asian people.
• As someone who is not fully Chinese but Eurasian, does someone like Pang have the credibility to do Asian jokes like this? Would it be different coming from a "full Asian" rather than someone who despite having a Chinese surname, still enjoys a degree of white privilege?

I'll admit one thing - if a white person (eg. Sam Newman) did the exact same skit, I'd probably waste no time in condemning the thing as racist dumbf#ckery. I would not for a second consider that Newman was being "meta". So I'm not sure what that says about me.

My head hurts.

(H/T Yuey)

See also:

Racial humour - is it ever ok?

"Yumi so sorry": media, masculinity and racism

In the same way that two wrongs make a right, the answer to being offended is, of course, to be even more offensive.

Australia's most-read tabloid showed its true colours again last week when it reported on some objectionable comments made on morning chat show The Circle. Co-host Yumi Stynes and guest George Negus made some regrettable cracks about Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith, a soldier awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery in Afghanistan. Based on his musclebound physique, they implied that he was a meathead and lacking in the bedroom. Cue outrage, strangely out of proportion to the number of people who actually watch The Circle, stoked largely by the Herald-Sun and it's associated News Limited papers. Stynes and Negus duly apologised.

At this point I should also mention that Yumi Stynes has a Japanese mother (she's one of the most prominent people of Asian background on Australian TV). Why is this relevant? Well, actually it's not relevant at all. Although someone at the Herald Sun thought it worth bringing up anyway, as the story was referenced on the front page (pictured below). See if you can spot the racism:

Don't get me wrong; the comments about Corporal Roberts-Smith were classless and uncalled for. I personally don't see why Stynes and Negus would think such a line of conversation was a good idea, even on a program on which light-hearted banter is a prominent feature. But equally, it's hard to see why anyone would think repeating a derogatory Asian stereotype from a bygone era is the appropriate response from any media outlet.

If you're not so sure what "me so sorry" is referencing, here's an example of The Simpsons referencing it:

Except The Simpsons' writers obviously know that it's not actually funny. Whoever writes headlines for the Herald Sun clearly didn't get the memo, and thinks it's hilarious.

To put it in perspective, it was only a couple of weeks ago that ESPN in the US sacked someone for coming up with this headline:

So, cue the massive outrage at the Herald Sun's similar racial insensitivity?

Er, nope. Next to nothing.

Now, I haven't even mentioned yet the ugly nature of the social media frenzy that has been stirring around the program, particularly towards Stynes. Here's an example:

[Source]

Of course, those are worse than the Herald Sun, but the Herald Sun is supposed to hold to a slightly higher standard than random douchebags on social media.
I understand people taking offense, but there is something really odd about THAT many people taking THAT much offense about comments that, while certainly mean-spirited, were clearly meant in jest, and were about one individual (Roberts-Smith) who most people knew nothing about a week ago.
And while Negus has received plenty of ill-will for his role in all this, it is notable that he seems to have escaped the very worst of it. That has been reserved for Stynes, who clearly deserves it for being (a) female, (b) Asian, and (c) a successful single mother.

Clearly the people making comments like those captured above are not overly sensitive souls who take objection to crude banter on morning television. So why is their rage so palpable?

I take it as a sign that subconsciously, many people feel like the concept of white Australian traditional masculinity is under threat, and has been for a while, and so its defenders are lashing out at someone that represents something strange and different. This is not to say that a certain level of anger at the comments made on The Circle is not justified. Just that a good deal of that anger is about punishing someone who "forgot her place" and dared to poke fun at someone who symbolizes the power of white male masculinity.


For some more context, try these three very good articles:

Why the abuse of Yumi Stynes must stop (covers the sexism angle)

Misplaced outrage: abuse and the army

Exclusive: George Negus isn't Satan

The Asian Menace

Randomly encountered this, from The Chaser's War on Everything from a few years back. Amusing.

Media-led burqa hysteria?

Amusing take from the folks at ABC's The Hamster Wheel on the Australian media's sensationalising of the burqa issue.


But this clip and the content within it represent for me the nature of problematic discussion about Islam in Australia. The Hamster Wheel guys do a good job of showing some of the ignorance that drives the prejudice against Muslims in Australia, and how the media fuel so much of it. But they also hint at the usual idea pushed by the Left that those who worry about the influence of radical Islam in Australia are probably stupid or racist or both.
Our media has essentially created a dichotomy: you are either a Muslim-hating xenophobe, or you accept anything and everything that Muslims do and assume that it'll all be okay in the end. For me, I look forward to a happy medium in which Australians (including Muslim Australians) can accept that Muslims are welcome and valued members of our society, yet acknowledge that certain practices associated with Islamic culture have no place in Australia. Of course, no two people seem to agree on exactly where that happy medium lies, so I guess we are stuck with the polarisation.

See also:

How the media manufactures a racist "controversy"

Is it Islamophobic to ban the burqa?

Shock and disbelief as Andrew Bolt is revealed to be racist

Australia's most popular news columnist, Andrew Bolt, found himself on the wrong end of a Federal Court decision this week. Justice Mordy Bromberg found the right-wing polemicist and his publisher the Herald-Sun guilty of a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. The paper will be forced to print an apology. The court found that 2 articles Bolt penned about certain fair-skinned members of the Aboriginal community were racially offensive, humiliating and "destructive of racial tolerance".

You can read the articles for yourself (White fellas in the black, and It's so hip to be black) although for legal reasons they may not stay up on the web for too long.

Predictably, the Right in Australia have collectively tut-tutted about the threat to free speech, with the Coalition signalling it will try to amend the Act if it gets in to power. By contrast the Left in Australia, who have long viewed Bolt as some kind of racist climate-change-denying Antichrist, seem happy to see the guy cop a legal beating.

For me, there are a few aspects to consider. Will this truly be a landmark ruling ushering in a new Orwellian approach to censorship in this country, as some are saying? Time will tell. While I believe there is certainly a place for legislation dealing with racial discrimination and vilification, I'm skeptical about its use in anything that's not a clear and fairly extreme case. I don't like most of what Bolt has to say, but in the main I think he should have a right to say it, just as other people should have the right to call Bolt a bit of a douche in reaction. Rather than trying to shut Bolt up, I'd prefer the Left lift its game, since Bolt's primary drawcard is his ability to point out stupidity on the Left. (Let's be honest, both sides of the spectrum have stupidity in spades if you look for it.) But it's important to keep in mind the particular details of this case. Bolt got facts wrong, quite basic facts, about the people who subsequently brought the case against him. While Bolt denies accusing fair-skinned Aborigines of identifying as black for cynical motives, the tone of these articles and others (this has been a long-running theme on the Bolt blog) certainly casts these people in a negative light for having the nerve to call themselves indigenous.

I've never been a fan of Andrew Bolt and have had my share of things to say about him on this blog, particular his love of highlighting "ethnic crime". I do feel a tiny bit sorry for him on this occasion, however, because I happen to agree with one of his points.

I have no issue with people claiming Aboriginal identity even though they might be predominantly European in ancestry and have a corresponding appearance; I'm in no position to judge how Aboriginal their upbringing was. I also have no issue with affirmative action policies for Aboriginal Australians; given our shameful history, there needs to be at least some measures in place to give them a leg up. However, it is where these two concepts meet where a problem can occur. Positive discrimination for Aborigines occurs in order to counter the racism and disadvantaged upbringings that they so frequently experience... yet does someone who is 3/4 white and is raised in a predominantly white environment actually experience these challenges to a substantive degree?

So while I don't think it is fair to question whether a "white" Aborigine is actually an Aborigine, it does seem fair to question whether they are entitled to all the financial benefits and opportunities that come with being Aboriginal when they almost certainly do not suffer the same level of disadvantage that a "black" Aborigine does. Particularly in cases where "black" Aborigines, a great many of whom are truly needy, are actually missing out on opportunities to Aborigines who are effectively white in appearance.

So Bolt actually had a point in there somewhere. It's a shame then that it had to be made by someone whose writings have shown repeated antipathy to the Aboriginal cause, and indeed to any culture that is not North-Western European in origin. It didn't take a court decision to prove that Bolt is a racist, or at very least "racially insensitive" or "racially inflammatory"; that was pretty well known already. But a wise man can admit that once in a while, one's ideological opponents can sort of get it right on some things. And if Bolt's overall tone was not so contemptuous of non-white people, maybe people on the other side of the spectrum might actually be able to listen to him without working themselves into a rage.

We can't let schools teach kids anything they don't already know

Ok, now here's a thought: given the amount of stuff in the school curriculum that kids learn that they'll probably never use, how about making it part of their education to learn about the religious traditions of some non-Christian faiths?

Doesn't seem like a particular outrageous concept. After all, given that we live in a fairly diverse society, you don't want your kids to grow up thinking Ramadan is something like a papadam, or thinking Passover is a some kind of ball game.

Or perhaps it is outrageous, judging from this story in Australia's most popular newspaper this week.

Schools should embrace Ramadan as well as Christmas - Muslim leaders

SCHOOLS that celebrate Christmas should also embrace other non-Christian religious festivals, Muslim leaders say.
Keysar Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, called on the Victorian Education Department to include the traditions of other religious faiths as part of the formal school curriculum.
"Schools have religious programs - but generally they're elective, they're not compulsory," he said. "To have an awareness of these festivals can be very enriching for all students, including people who go to secular schools."
His comments follow Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu's recent move to protect Christmas celebrations at state schools so that all children can enjoy the "simple pleasures" of the holiday.
Mr Trad called on Mr Baillieu to extend the same level of support to other religions as well. "When the Premier of the state makes a statement in that manner, one can't help but feel that he is giving an official stamp to one religion to the exclusion of the other," he said. "To be a Premier for all Victorians, I look forward to his instructions to schools to teach about the important religious festivals for all faiths."
Mr Trad added that Muslim people should be able to take leave from work during Eid, the three-day holiday that marks the end of Ramadan.
Sherene Hassan, vice-president of the Islamic Council of Victoria, also endorsed the incorporation of Ramadan and other religious festivals in the classroom.
"Conversations about increasing awareness of different cultures and religions are already taking place and have been happening for some time among educators," she said. "The ICV believes this is a positive way of fostering respect between children."
Sheikh Mohamadu Saleem, spokesman for the Australian National Imams' Council, said that schools could hold anything from lessons to full-blown celebrations, depending on the number of pupils of that particular faith.
"Christmas here is celebrated, although the majority of Australians are not Christians but probably consider themselves to be secularists or atheists," he said.
"Exposure to other cultures in a multi-racial country is a good thing, especially in schools."
Mr Baillieu and the Victorian Education Department declined to comment when contacted by the Herald Sun.

Now what they are suggesting is hardly radical at all, whether you agree with it or not. But check out the tone of almost all the 491 comments attached to the article:

Jooles Posted at 12:34 AM December 15, 2010
Nope! Not even remotely interested. Muslims came to MY country, I didn't go to theirs. When THEY embrace our cultures and other religions openly and equally in THEIR countries, then we will do the same. Until then, I'm not interested. In fact, not even then. Who cares about Islam? Not me and not many many people around me.
Comment 1 of 491

Gate-Keeper of Vienna Posted at 12:42 AM December 15, 2010
Inch by inch, creep & creep, push & push....this bunch of supremacists has no interest whatsoever beyond one simple outcome - final and absolute victory. There is no second prize, there can be no compromise of any kind. It is written in their blood-curdling prose - read it yourself.
Comment 9 of 491

Mary K of travelling Oz Posted at 6:35 AM December 15, 2010
We can and should accept and respect other religions but dont need to learn about them.I do not think that imported religions should be able to take time off from work during "Eid". Australia cannot, and shouldn't give them or any other religions the holidays they have during their special time, as they are now living in Australia!
Comment 89 of 491

Preston W. of Rowville Posted at 7:10 AM December 15, 2010
do schools in muslim countries celebrate Christmas? No? Well, if you don't like our way of life you can always try elsewhere!
Comment 117 of 491

Mick Ellis of Narre Warren Posted at 7:11 AM December 15, 2010
How many christians blew themselves up in 2010? How many christians declared war on islam? We celebrate christmas as a time of peace and giving to all. Will islam open thier hearts to non-muslims during ramadan in the same way. I know they won't. I've heard muslims singing the turkish national anthem on Anzac day just to be disrespectful. Islam cannot co-exist peacefully with other religions it's not in there nature. They kill thier own as punishment they will never respect anyone else.
Comment 118 of 491

Aussie of Melbourne Posted at 7:41 AM December 15, 2010
How about, no? If you want to celebrate Ramadan, go to an Islamic country. Simple. It seems people come to Australia to infiltrate it, not because it's a better alternative. "Tradition" is now being branded "discrimination". What a pathetic joke.
Comment 154 of 491

Andrew Posted at 11:59 AM December 15, 2010
What next? Main Kampf in school?
Comment 436 of 491

The paper also ran an attached poll, asking "Should schools that celebrate Christmas embrace Ramadan and other non-Christian festivals?"
Of the 6271 respondents, 87.56% answered No.

Now to understand the reaction to this story, a few contextual factors must be taken into account, including the way the story was presented and who is in it.

Firstly: Keysar Trad is the main Muslim leader quoted, and a large photo of his grinning face accompanies the article. Trad is widely seen as a dodgy individual, and he quite simply is a poor spokesman for Australian Muslims. He routinely attaches himself to questionable causes, and every time I see him interviewed on TV he just exudes every negative stereotype the public has of "the shifty Arab". I'm sure he does some good work somewhere, but if the Muslim community in Australia value good PR, they need to shove this guy right to the back.
Because the paper makes him the primary feature of the article, straight away readers are going to have negative associations. And they managed to find the shiftiest-looking photo of Trad available (although in fairness, that's not hard to do). I wonder why they didn't instead choose the much more benevolent-looking Sherene Hassan? Simple: because one suits the image of Muslims that News Limited wishes to focus on.

Secondly: Is this issue one of across-the-board religious tolerance, or is it solely about Islam? Certainly it is being raised by Muslim leaders, but what they suggest encompasses non-Christian religions generally, not just Islam. So the headline, invoking Ramadan, seems to be designed to put a sensationalist spin on the article.

One of the fears that seems to resonate through the comments attached to the story, is that this is "the thin end of the wedge"; Muslims are trying to gradually Islamicise Australia by imposing their customs onto everyone's daily life. Now, I don't doubt that there are some in the Muslim community who do have that agenda. Is it really what the majority of Muslims want? I'm not so sure. Is it the underlying agenda of the Muslim leaders quoted in this article? I don't think so. But for a significant section of the public, the entire Muslim ummah is seen as being engaged in a sneaky campaign to turn the world into a giant Caliphate, and this sort of thing fits right into that theory.

The problem is, that in the case of this story, the nature of the messenger obscures the actual issue. It is worth discussing the role of religion in the school system. Shouldn't young people be taught about religion, at least in an anthropological sense? Since it is such an influential factor in the lives of most of the world, should we not have a better understanding of it? For example, what's the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim and a Hindu? I bet at least half of graduating high school students in Australia would struggle to give an answer to that. Now given that Christianity is by far the most widely practiced religion in Australia, it follows that it should be taught in more detail - it is fundamental to understanding the moral and legal basis of Australian society. But likewise, I think it's essential for people to have a basic understanding of what the major religions are about. Should they celebrate all their holidays as part of the school curriculum? Perhaps not, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to learn about them.

The other recurring theme in the comments is that most Muslim states don't teach Christian traditions in their schools, so why should we teach Muslim stuff in ours? Which is sound logic, if you are they kind of person who doesn't think we we strive to be a better society than any other. Hell, why don't we base all our legal principles on what the Saudis do?
I don't want students being proselytised to in the classroom, unless they are attending a specifically religious school. But neither do I like the idea that we should keep religion out of the classroom entirely. Even if religions are mostly a bit nuts, it's still important to understand what they're about. Because, like, school is like, for learning and stuff, innit?

Of geeks and gangsters: the "model minority"

Two stories made the news this week about young Asian people in Melbourne. The contrast between the two is interesting.

From the Herald Sun:

NON-ANGLO SAXON STUDENTS SNAP UP MOST PLACES AT NEW SELECTIVE SCHOOL


STUDENTS from non-Anglo Saxon backgrounds have snapped up most places at Melbourne's newest public selective school - and aspiration is the key. Children from Indian, Sri Lankan and Chinese families dominate classes at Nossal High in Berwick, which has just opened with 200 year 9 students.

Principal Roger Page said more than 80 per cent of the students were from non-Anglo Saxon backgrounds. "And that's because of the level of aspiration," he told the Herald Sun. "Some of the Sri Lankan, the Indian, the Asian communities are highly aspirational."

Mr Page said he'd been amazed to receive phone calls about enrolments from Sri Lankan families in Dandenong before building of the school had even begun.

"I said, 'We haven't even announced it yet. How do you know?' They said, 'Well, word has gone around the community. We're interested. We're really keen."'

Mr Page said it was possible that a smaller proportion of Anglo Saxon families had applied to enrol at selective schools, and that immigrant parents were more prepared to move or travel to enrol their children in such schools.

Students from Asian backgrounds often put in many hours of study, including Saturday morning language classes, Mr Page said.

The school was named after eminent scientist Sir Gustav Nossal, himself a migrant. Sir Gustav said the immigrant experience was behind such a striving for success.

"There's no doubt that back against the wall, kicked out of your own country, faced with this new environment, you try harder," he said. "Often the parents who come to a country as adults are sacrificing themselves for their kids to get a good education and so forth."

Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals president Brian Burgess said society had to encourage all families to value education. Nossal High, located on the Monash University site at Berwick, is part of a $20 million State Government plan to build selective schools.

It wouldn't be surprising to anyone who knows Asian people. In many Asian cultures (particularly from North East Asia and South Asia) as mentioned above), a good education is the highest priority for young people. Thus people from these cultures are disproportionally represented among academic achievers; and thus at selective schools (for which you need to sit an exam to get in), Asians dominate. Thus, being more likely to be educated and earning a good income, Chinese and Indians are often considered "model minorities".


Then there is the other perception of Asian youth, also in the Herald Sun:

Editorial: ASIAN GANGS

POLICE fears of an Asian gang war, as revealed by the Herald Sun, call for an urgent response in the interests of public safety. A secret intelligence report, warning of "a significant incident" in Melbourne, shows the level of police concern following a spate of gang-related violence.
The report makes a number of recommendations, which not only demonstrate the need for a rapid response, but confirm that police have recognised they must involve schools in dealing with an alarming community issue. Schools are where gang members are often recruited, and where efforts can be most effective in stopping the spread of violence.

Chief Commissioner Simon Overland must re-establish an Asian squad, which was disbanded under the administration of former chief commissioner Christine Nixon. This can now be seen as a mistake that has frustrated police and robbed them of valuable intelligence on gang activities.

Although other ethnic groups are also causing concern in a rising culture of violence, it is Asian gangs that have been responsible for some of the worst incidents. Five gangs have been identified by police as being responsible for much of the violence, often at Asian "theme" nights, where gang members often clash.

Police are worried about the increasing use of weapons such as baseball bats and knives in gang warfare, sometimes in public parks and gardens.
The Herald Sun is concerned that innocent bystanders may be caught up in fights between gangs, and calls on Premier John Brumby to give Victoria Police the fullest possible support in dealing with a dangerous surge in street crime.

Now I'm in no position to say whether the Asian gang problem in Melbourne is really as serious as this newspaper is making out. I have however written here in the past about a common tendency to throw the word "gang" around whenever a group of "ethnics" are involved in something, whether or not they are actually a gang, in the true sense of the word. (You can read an article about this here.)

Note that the Asians mentioned in the first story are not necessarily the same variety as in the second story (who are more likely to be Vietnamese, Cambodian and Chinese background).

In any case, the newspaper has shown two different sides of the Asian-Australian community, good and bad. Which one do you think their readership will take more note of?

Well, the article about high-achieving Asian students did not receive any reader's comments, although it's hard to say how much that is an indicator of reader interest. But you could also say that despite the article being a great example of the immigrant success story, readers could also see it in a negative light; in other words, ethnics taking away places from "real" Australians.

By contrast, check this article about the gang problem, also from the Herald Sun this week, and witness the kind of comments left there:

A of Rushworth Posted at 3:06 AM May 20, 2010
Which idiot thought up multi-culturalism? Australia keeps on importing trouble which is then handed on to the next generations. What a pity that we no longer have 'head-in-the-sand' theorist Christine Nixon, to hide the actual Asian crime statistics.
Comment 1 of 42


Paula of Brisbane Posted at 6:30 AM May 20, 2010
Pauline Hanson you were so right.
Comment 15 of 42

R Posted at 6:41 AM May 20, 2010
Multiculturalism, you gotta love it - not.
Comment 19 of 42


Davo of Melbourne Posted at 7:13 AM May 20, 2010
I bet if they had Caucasian nights at nightclubs they would be banned because they are racist. So why are Asian nights allowed?
Comment 26 of 42


Lily of Melbourne Posted at 7:29 AM May 20, 2010
Send them all back from where they came from. This is NOT an Australian way of life. We DON'T want this here.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment 32 of 42

Now, given that Asians have been a significant presence in Australia since the 1970s (and much earlier in smaller numbers), there is a very good chance that many if not most members of Asian gangs are born in Australia. In which case, how do you send them back where they came from? And how many generations do Asians have to be here before they are recognised as Australian?


See also:

Define "race-based attack"

"Send them all back"... even if they are Australian

Working with refugee kids

How to use the media to incite racial hatred

(Hat tip to regular reader Peter)

There are plenty of ranting voices out there in the wilds of the internet who will spew crazed theories and racial epithets, but that's not the subject of today's post.

This is about someone blogging under the banner of a major news organisation, who claims to dislike racism, yet seems quite happy to stir it up incessantly.

This is about how journalists can pursue a racist agenda even in an article that purports to be about something entirely unrelated.

The journalist I refer to is Andrew Bolt, arguably Australia's best-known conservative commentator and who claims to have the most popular political blog in the country (at the Herald-Sun website).

I've written a few things here in the past about Bolt's approach to racial issues. It would be no surprise to anyone familiar with the man's work that he is very fond of Northern European cultures and scathing towards non-white immigration, particularly regarding Africans and Muslims. One of the issues he (and the Herald-Sun in general) repeatedly focuses on is ethnic crime. To this end, crime committed by Anglo or other white people is merely crime; if the perpetrator happens to be non-white, then it's "ethnic crime" and their ethnicity is highlighted as being significant. Given that the Herald-Sun's readership tends to lean to the Right, and is generally worried about the erosion of values and standards in our country (as every generation is), their exists a prevailing idea that the alleged decline of our society must be because of all those immigrants.

Thus you see posts where Bolt infers that Obama is planning a race war against white people, insinuates that a violent thug could not have been white despite a police report saying so, or that the people responsible for attacking Indian students in Melbourne were all non-white.

So what about a story that might seem to contradict this dominant narrative?

Take the recent rioting in Oakleigh that resulted in a Bob Jane T-Mart store being trashed. Look at any footage of the incident and you'll observe a sea of faces that were overwhelmingly Caucasian (whether Anglo, European, or Middle Eastern). I wrote on this blog that had it been Asian or black faces, then focus would be on immigration and ethnic crime; so since the faces were white, I wondered, would race get a mention at all?

Well, yes and no. Bolt shows some photos of the white rioters in a March 21 post called Spot the Feral. And then, to reinforce a point about disrespect for police, shows 3 Youtube clips of young people creating a ruckus and having run-ins with police officers. It's a little unclear what entirely is going on in these videos, but the aggressive young people in at least 2 of them are African (probably Sudanese).

So a post about aggression, specifically caused by people who happen to be mostly white, is now highlighting the aggression caused by young African men. Of course, you might argue that that is merely coincidental, and maybe it is.

But Bolt is so fond of this footage of aggressive Africans that he shows it again on April 24. This time in a post entitled Teenagers attack police, yet again. The post refers to an out-of-control party in the Victorian country town of Sale, at which police called to the scene were assaulted. Now the ethnicity of the offending teenagers is not mentioned, but anyone who has been to Sale can tell you that Sudanese people are hardly a common sight in Sale - the populace is mostly white with a small Aboriginal population. Yet the footage of Sudanese is dragged out to illustrate it.

Two posts about aggressors who are most likely white or predominantly white. Yet that is a distraction from one of the dominant themes of the Andrew Bolt Blog, so for the sake of a clear narrative, visuals of violent black folks are provided to the reader. We wouldn't want anyone to get confused and think that anyone other than dirty foreigners commit violent acts now, would we?

Fast forward to April 29, and Bolt posts about his upcoming radio show and how he will be discussing what he sees as the problem with female police officers. This seems to be as good an opportunity as any to... show the same footage again? Yes, the Youtube clips of aggressive Sudanese youths, which he has shown twice already in recent weeks, get yet another airing. Of course, the blog post in question doesn't have anything to do with Sudanese, but neither did the other two.

Now of course you can argue, as I'm sure Andrew Bolt would, that there is no significance in the fact that the video footage, which seems to perfectly illustrate his points on a number of issues, features African immigrants. It could have been people of any race.

But of course, if you are familiar with the amount of column inches Bolt has devoted to attacking African immigration, and if you are familiar with the Herald-Sun's sneaky ways of whipping up xenophobic controversy, then you would suspect that Bolt has an agenda here. It's as if, no matter what the issue, Bolt finds a way to remind us that Africans are indeed the enemy.

The cleverness about this is that he has conveyed that idea in three blog posts that are not about Africans and do not even mention Africans.

So do his readers take the bait and embrace the subconscious programming? Commenter Brian sure does (at the third post):

At the risk of being called racist I noticed the prevalence of African and Middle Eastern people involved in those video clips.  So it would seem we have imported troublemakers by the bucket load with out open immigration scheme . As if we haven’t got enough home grown trouble makers already
brian of melbourne (Reply)
Thu 29 Apr 10 (06:02pm)

Well done Brian, you successfully joined the dots that Andrew laid out for you.

Repeat something often enough, and eventually people will believe it to be true.


More like this:

Why you shouldn't believe everything you see on TV

"Send them all back"... even if they are Australian?

What's with all the resentful white people reading the Herald-Sun?

"The subject was described as having dark skin..."

Asian-fearing Herald-Sun readers of the week

Let's all blame the victim