In the strongest terms I take issue with the categorisation of Australia as the equivalent of ”the old South Africa”, a suggestion made by Richard Calland last week in his article ”Of sheep and the new Thatcherites”.
The mists of time seem to have enveloped the pages of history where Australia stood steadfast against the old South Africa through the Seventies, Eighties and Nineties. Throughout, there was bipartisan political support in Australia for sporting and economic boycotts against the apartheid regime, complemented by activism in international forums like the Commonwealth. Australians watched with joy the transfer of power to the new leadership in 1994, and the moves to redress the economic and social injustices of apartheid.
I was part of a government delegation led by minister Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi to Australia, at the invitation of the Australian government in 1995, to celebrate with us our new democracy. Such hospitality I have yet to experience anywhere in the world as Australians shared expertise and resources with us to help us on our way in developing democratic practices in this country. I am increasingly, therefore, uncomfortable with the shoot-from-the-hip approach to international analysis that Calland and parts of the African National Congress and the media adopt when analysing Australia.
It is sad that while the solidarity of dictators during the dark years of apartheid is now rewarded with strong and unwavering ties, the solidarity of progressive developed countries like Australia is forgotten. The frequent public sledging of Australia by the government and media alike in South Africa demonstrates an unfortunate historical amnesia. While accepting of Australia’s support in the fight against apartheid, parts of the ANC are now quick to interpret similarly inspired Australian efforts in Zimbabwe as a ”white conspiracy”. So too do they forget the support Australia lent to Zimbabwe’s independence struggle. Is it not possible for a developed country to argue in favour of human rights and democracy in Africa? Are these not precisely the issues the international community rallied around to pressure the apartheid regime?
Calland paints Australia as a ”racially homogenous” society, overburdened with regulation and safe to the point of boredom. While I was amused by his earlier description of Australian sporting efficiency as befitting the tag ”Switzerland of the South,” how he arrived at this picture of racial homogeneity is beyond me. Only by staying within the ”cosseted comfort” of Mosman (Sydney’s Sandton equivalent) could he have arrived at this conclusion. Australia is one of the success stories of multiculturalism and stands beside the United States and Canada as a ”magnificent tapestry of multi-ethnicity”.
In 2001 almost 25% of the 19-million Australians were born overseas. While granted the first ranked of the source countries is the United Kingdom followed by New Zealand, third in line is Italy, then Vietnam, China, Greece, Germany, the Philippines, India, The Netherlands, South Africa, Malaysia, Lebanon and Hong Kong, in that order.
The trend continues with more than 30% of Australia’s immigrants this year from Asian countries. The premier of Victoria is of Lebanese origin, the mayor of Melbourne is of Chinese origin, and within his city are more than 140 different ethnic groups.
Australians speak more than 200 languages, 45 of which are indigenous, and 460 000 people identify as Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander. This is far from the picture of homogeneity Calland claims to have seen.
South Africans hate it when generalisations are made about this diverse country. Why should Australia have to put up with such ignorant generalisations?
To his credit, Calland does pick up on the interesting political debate in Australia over indigenous justice.
In all healthy societies there are debates like this that keep past injustices in the public domain. But I find it puzzling that Calland equates a growing public debate on this issue with a society teetering toward ”moral indifference”. Surely it indicates the opposite, a society that is dealing with its issues through reasoned debate.
One must be very careful though when attempting to compare the views of the government with the views of the people. To criticise the Australian government, as Calland does, for its decision not to say ”sorry” (instead it ”expressed regret”) is one thing, but to presume that that is representative of the view of all Australians is foolish. One needs only to think back to the moving pictures of hundreds of thousands of Australians walking across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in their personal display of reconciliation to see that such generalisations are unfair.
It may sit uncomfortably, but if we look beyond our fiendishly competitive sporting relationship, Australians have a great deal of affection for South Africa. Many are quite taken aback at the venom directed at Australia when they visit here. The fact that someone who writes as well as Calland should pander to the palpably incorrect stereotypes of Australia that circulate unchallenged in this country, is disappointing. As an anthropologist I cannot let Calland off the hook!
Related:
Of sheep and the new Thatcherites