:: Saturday, 11 January 2003 ::
I cannot locate a link to the piece in yesterday's Spectrum in the SMH by someone called Andrew Stephenson. It is a big piece, of about 800 maybe 1000 words. Its thesis is that Australian multiculturalism is founded on tolerance but would be better if it was founded on acceptance. The difference between the two being the difference between the real world and some chocolate-covered veal-dipped paradise wonderworld. That is to say, he is full of shit. He is not malicious, or at least the impression I get is that the author is a nice, nice man. But sheesh. how about this closing:
Acceptance does not mean pretending our problems away or imagining that there are no inherent inconveniences or frustrations in establishing a muticultural community; it's not about repressing such negative sentiments until they boil over in rages that rupture the social fabric.
Instead, acceptance offers the chance to deal with the difference upfront: the way you imagine and live your life is different to mine but I accept it and, in accepting it, I accept you.
In doing so we can, together, create something better than each of us could possibly achieve alone. Let's put up with other no more [ed: tolerate] and instead boldly go forth and enjoy the fruits of a diverse, multi-ethnic, multiracial community.
At this point I will permit you a moment to delicately wipe the puke from your lips.
I mean, has this jackass ever been in a room with a Serb and a Croat? At the same time? I will wager no.
His whole article is a some white guiltapalooza fest, you know? Wogs only just barely tolerate other wogs, okay? Just barely. Acceptance is not part of the equation. Tolerance is as good as it gets. And you know what? Skips are very woggy 'bout this. They tolerate. They tolerate other skippies and wogs. Tolerate. Acceptance is not something the whole communities do. That is individual. When I see a Greek marry an Italian. I think two things. The second being, how nice it is to see folks with two religious traditions, all in love. Tolerance is a damn fine basis for a multicultural community. To ask for anything more is ridiculous.
The author's thesis is that, if acceptance was the basis of multiculturalism, instead of tolerance, then, in the face of a violent disgrace like Bali, the population would have united behind a condemnation of the criminality of the bombing, and not focussed on the ethnic and cultural background of the perpetrators, filling the radio airwaves with nasty talkback.
The perpetrators perpetrated the disgusting bombing because of their ethnic and cultural background.
Just. Say. It. Some ethnic and cultural stuff is not doing a good job of even tolerating the rest of us, wog and skippy alike, wherever we might be in the world. It will get better, but will take some effort. And not the loving hippy effort. As for 'acceptance', I do not care to 'go boldly forth and enjoy fruits' of everyone even here in Oz. My friends I accept. Love. The rest. I tolerate.
Fuzzy 'love everyone' shit is for imbeciles who do not understand anything about the human condition. To paraphrase that Yank comedian whose name I have forgotten: "You can't love everyone. Where would you put 'em?"
:: WB 10:05 pm [link+] ::