in service of the
We share the same values as the US –
No, we most certainly do not
Values play a significant role in the forging of national identity. We become the people we think we are. Tuning in to the ABC these days, one cannot miss hearing “I am, you are, we are Australian”. What the dickens does that mean? Nothing if it simply remains a little ditty.
The stories we tell, the poems we write, the history we recount, the songs we sing, give expression to the values we hold dear, and the meaning we are prepared to own. That history, and those songs, must continue to be revisited. Their evolution over the last 200+ years has of necessity been immense. There is still a long distance to travel especially in listening to the history and songs of the indigenous people whose rights have been trampled and culture cleansed, causing their generational pain, and loss to all subsequent Australians. This significant matter aside, what it means to be an American and what it means to be an Australian are two different realities.
We are people of the verandah, the edge. Americans are people of the hearth, the centre.
We live in a string of archipelagos around the edge of our continent. We have a capital city that few take seriously, preferring loyalty to state capitals or even provincial towns. We meet in the open, on the beach, perched on verandahs, around campfires, having a BBQ. We are suspicious of ‘centre’, of hierarchy, institutions and elitism. We value egalitarianism. Title or position does not carry authority, it resides only in the inner integrity a person might bring to the office. Living on the edge we travel and connect. At any given time, Australians will be found in every nook and cranny of the planet. Americans are taught to believe they are the centre, not simply that they have a centre. This centeredness has produced insularity. Americans assume knowledge of other peoples and presume to know what might be best for others, leading to countless disastrous interventions in every corner of the planet. It is quite shameful that we have been invited (commanded) to participate in some of these catastrophic interventions.
We are a people of association. Americans are people of rights.
Around 30 percent of Australians were born overseas with a far greater percentage enjoying at least one overseas born parent. We are bonded to each other through our common migration and through cherishing the unique giftedness provided by our continent home. We cherish fundamental freedoms, but consider them privileges for which we must continue to sacrifice, rather than believing they are endowed as rights. The ANZAC tradition is part of this narrative. Despite Senator David Leyonhjelm’s short tenure, and the flitting around of the maverick Mark Latham, libertarianism is not a force that is attractive to Australia, while it lies barely under the surface for American Republicans. American obsession with rights, most obviously expressed in gun ownership, is incomprehensible to most Australians, indeed repugnant to most. American culture is nothing if it not a culture of rights. Rights dominate over social contract and responsibility as illustrated in the absence of universal health care. COVID 19 has made abundantly clear how destructive this culture is, paradoxically even of the very rights so cherished. It is almost inconceivable that level four lockdown now in place in Victoria could occur anywhere in the US. There, common good cannot prevail over individual rights.
We are a spiritual people. Americans are a religious people.
Religion has been influential in Australian history, political power plays, and wealth accumulation. But it has sat uneasily in the hearts and minds of ordinary Australians. In early days of white colonisation most confessed allegiance to a religious institution, but this had little to do with dogma, but more with culture, and ethnic identity - ancestry. While there has been recent phenomenal growth in dogma, through Pentecostal/Evangelical churches, religious dogma is very unattractive to most Australians, not least personalised ethics drawn from that dogma. For this reason, a campaign to abolish abortion, demonise active palliative care, or stigmatise the rights of the LGBTQI community will not carry weight amongst Australians, as witnessed by the equal rights plebiscite. On the other hand, in the United States of America a politician cannot be carried into office without championing religious affiliation, even bigotry. In the last decade, Australian conservative politics has championed the values of the Australian Christian Lobby, a body unapologetically modelled on American fundamentalism and personalised religion, but recent setbacks have made this alliance embarrassing and its champions suspect to most Australians.
Australians are pragmatists. Americans are ideologues
Australians live on a continent described by Dorothea Mackellar as a place of contrasts, of droughts and flooding rains. Her poem symbolises the contrasts, the diversities, which make a nonsense of ideological certainties. The ideological certainties which have characterised both sides of Australian politics in recent years are the main reason for the disjuncture between Australian political life and the Australian people.
Ideology is intolerant of other views, confident that truth lies with everything complimentary to one’s own dogma. Evidence that is contrary is disallowed and labelled ‘fake news’. Much ideology has a religious base. The percentage of Americans who claim to believe in a short view of history, that Adam and Eve were literally the first human beings approximately 7,000 years ago, is staggering. A false binary between science and faith has developed that has spilled beyond its own boundaries to reduce commitment to science-based policy, replacing it with ideology, or self-interest. Ideology thrives on a divisive, black and white view of the world so beloved of the current president. Ideology permits no place for nuance or paradox.
Australians are globalists. Americans have increasingly become isolationists.
Because of our migrant origins, our dependence upon trade, and our love of travel, Australian interests are tied to a rules-based global community. The last decade has seen successive Australian conservative governments side with the US in devaluing international obligations, commitment to the United Nations, and especially international efforts to combat global warming. This has not been in Australia’s interests and at last we are seeing signs that the present government wants to distance itself from positions so beloved of the American president. America clearly still believes in its own dominance. Australia knows its future lies in alliances.
Australians and Americans speak the same language, share European origins, have fought on the same side in many wars, and ‘enjoy’ democratic government. But our values are not the same, they are increasingly divergent. It has been to Australia’s detriment that Australia’s political elite have for too long acted out of a view that the values are the same.
That Pesky Hip Joint – or what is in a name
No, I am not referring to mine, but to Jacob’s. Last Sunday, the Old Testament reading was Genesis 32: 22 – 31, the narrative of Jacob’s struggle with himself/an angel/God. Like all human struggles, it left its mark, a dislocated hip, an imperfection that he and those who identify with him would have to carry. But it is not the hip that is central to the narrative but the name he was given - Israel.
There are many who, perhaps with good reason, doubt the historicity of the narrative, but that is not the point. The point is that in this story we are to understand the origin of Israel in Jewish tradition, the meaning it carries, or should carry, and the defining values, or identity, of any who would subsequently appropriate the name and be known as Israelites or Israelis.
Jacob is of course the grandson of Abraham, and inheritor of the founding ancestor’s God given blessing and legacy, which he accessed by tricking his twin brother out of it. He is the father of the twelve tribes, sons of his two wives, including Judah, whose name Netanyahu and Israeli authorities like to use for Palestinian territories they covet. Was the struggle he experienced that night related to living with his deception, and redeeming its consequences? Idle speculation! The Bible is never shy of recounting the weaknesses and failures of its heroes; indeed, its overriding theme is that grace prevails despite human frailty.
The detail of what happened that night is of far less importance than the import that is ascribed to it.
As Jacob struggled, he asked his assailant to provide a name. The assailant refused. If we are to understand the assailant was God, or Jacob’s experience of God, this is hardly surprising, given a name objectivises, giving control to the subject. God is beyond the limitation of human description, as much as we love to do it. Indeed, God is not to be objectified as an entity at all. Those who seek to deny any reality in religious experience love to ridicule with the assistance of objectified images.
But naming was indeed on the cards that night, not of God, but Jacob. From that day forth he and his descendants are to be known as ones who struggle with God. That is essentially what the name Israel means. Struggling with God implies struggling with meaning, with identity, with purpose, indeed with truth. Unwittingly, Pilate momentarily joined this struggle when Jesus was arraigned before him and he asked: “What is truth”.
The prophetic tradition shines light on the struggle. It reminds those who call themselves Israelites that by virtue of their name, they are channels of God’s grace in and to the world. What happens in the temple is meaningless if it does not reflect what is happening in the world. The words that repeat themselves again and again are righteousness, justice, and compassion. Those who do not long for, and strive to live out these virtues, are not struggling with God, but living independent lives.
In the New Testament, this struggle is made crystal clear in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, where he says: “Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who though he was in the form of God did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied himself…..”
When Chaim Weizmann and other Zionist leaders appropriated the name Israel for the modern Jewish State, they were not claiming a name devoid of meaning or history. Although now a secular State, Israel appropriates a religious history and a deeply religious identity. Because of the elements I have already described, Israel’s identity can never simply be about itself, but about how it relates in righteousness and justice to others. To be a child of Israel (Jacob) is to be one who seeks to share blessing with others. The blessing that came to Jacob was never for himself, through him and his descendants this blessing was to be a channel of grace to others. Not being prepared to be that channel is to forfeit the identity.
Israel, under the leadership of Netanyahu, is about as far from this description as it is possible to travel. Perhaps that is why so many Israelis have joined a campaign of protest against him. Jesus once said of Nathaniel: “here is an Israelite in whom there is no guile”, the tragic truth is that no one could truthfully say that of contemporary Israeli leadership. Does any of this matter beyond the boundaries of the Israeli State?
Well, yes it does for three reasons.
I will almost certainly have the opprobrium of anti-Semitism accelerated in my direction for writing this blog. This is quite ironic. I believe in Israel. I want Israel to exist, because of what the Bible tells me to be the reason for its existence. Modern Israel is not that, it is the very antithesis of that. My blog is a call for Israel to be true to its origins or abandon any claim to its religious history and any rightful claim to the land of ancient Palestine.
The Treasurer: channelling Thatcher and Reagan
If we are ‘in this together’, the latest and perhaps less infantile three-word slogan of government, then government needs to lead by example. In fairness, the Prime Minister has done this through his national cabinet, perhaps the best political outcome of the Covid crisis so far. However, if we are to come out of this crisis stronger and more resilient, we need to leave behind banal inter-party rivalry and attempted one- up-man-ship that has bedevilled much needed, and hoped for national policy reform this century.
But any real hope for this has ceased to be promising, as the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, in planning future strategies, announced he is channelling Thatcher and Reagan and to a lesser degree Howard and Costello. Sure good things were done. The ozone layer was tackled. Much needed industrial reform was accomplished in the UK. John Howard achieved gun ownership reform. Howard and Costello were fortunate that their period in power was a time of almost unmatched economic gain, riding on the mining boom and the reforms of Hawke and Keating whose achievements arose outside the square of what had been until then, typical Labour policy. The great loss of opportunity that marked Howard and Costello’s time in office was providing over generous largesse to the private sector and insufficient investment in public infrastructure and most significantly, the environment. Had this investment been made we would not still be arguing about energy reform, it would already be well in place with countless new jobs spread across the country. Hydrogen could already be in production from renewable energy sources. We could be exporting hydrogen as well as having transformed our domestic industrial base. But no, none of this has occurred. In addition, we remain burdened by unaffordable largesse to the private sector in terms of negative gearing and other generous tax provisions which the government is politically incapable of addressing. Mr Frydenberg, we don’t need you to channel Howard and Costello, but Hawke and Keating, and enact reform by stepping outside your traditional political comfort zone.
But I want to focus on Thatcher and Reagan. While industrial reform was absolutely necessary in the UK, the manner in which this was addressed by Prime Minister Thatcher caused cultural bitterness which lasted decades. Despite good things achieved by Thatcher, this is her overriding legacy. Frydenberg’s channelling of Thatcher is utterly foolish for in the mind of the public he will not be channelling positive outcomes but bitterness and division. This is the last thing needed at present. We need concord and common purpose shared between labour and industry; without it the future looks bleak. This concord requires respect and trust. Thatcher is also remembered for the Falklands War. When politicians are looking for a boost in the polls, almost invariably they invoke war. What was Britain doing defending honour in the latter part of the 20th century, in an outpost of empire off the South American coast? Is the present Australian government intending to ramp up its military credentials?
Thatcher and Reagan between them laid the foundations of neo-liberal capitalism: the exultation of the individual, free rein to the market, and the privatisation of almost everything. I presume this is what Frydenberg thinks he is going to channel. If this is the case, then few lessons have been learned, necessary reform is not going to happen, alienation and disappointment will deepen. Why?
Covid has taught us that the individual is not the focus of the universe, family or society is. Untold damage has been done and is being done to the health and economy of the nation, and to some parts in particular, by a few individuals who believe it is not the role of government to legislate for the common good. This is exactly what government should do, in fact this is about the only thing they should be doing. During the pandemic most have been aghast that a small number have considered it their right to do as they please. Some video clips of this behaviour have been quite sickening. No Mr Frydenberg, we do not need greater freedom to individuals we need clearer and enforceable requirements that safeguard common good.
And no we do not need the privatisation of absolutely everything. Again the pandemic has shown this to be a significant part of the problem. What was somebody thinking when it seemed a good idea to devolve the supervision of mandatory quarantine provisions to a private company who, not having trained staff, advertised through social media. They employed untrained personnel who, in addition to being untrained, were asked to make provision for their own personal protection equipment. But we do not simply need this example, what was government thinking when privatising training and killing off TAFEs which now desperately need to be reinvented. What were they thinking when allowing shonky companies to provide non-existent educational facilities? What was government thinking in privatising the electricity grid which is no longer fit for purpose and which is making the transformation of the energy sector very problematic. Or, what was government thinking when privatising juvenile justice prisons. The list is long. No, we do not need more privatisation, but that looks like our destiny.
Nor do we need more relaxed rules in the market to enable ‘entrepreneurs ‘ to make a dollar’ whenever and however they choose. Many have become billionaires through enterprises that have raped the environment. There is little evidence that the current Minister for the Environment believes in her portfolio. “Reducing red tape” is code for making it easier for projects to proceed on the basis that they serve the monetary interests of the individual, rather than the long-term interest of society a whole.
We need directed investment that may not deliver a monetary gain tomorrow, but which will undergird a reformed economy into the future. It is clear that this reform must include provisions for the democratisation of the energy market, enabling individuals and neighbourhoods to generate and distribute their own energy. It will require the development of renewable energy for hydrogen production at scale which can transform Australian industry. It will require a re-evaluation of salaries so that people are reasonably compensated for the contribution they make to society. The increasing numbers who will be required in caring services should not be remunerated at 100th the remuneration of a banker or CEO.
It will need a reform of the manner in which people are honoured. The Queen’s birthday honours this year have brought the Honours system into disrepute.
Mr Frydenberg, I consider you an honourable man. Please drop your current ill-chosen mantra. If you want to channel someone, channel the current healthcare workers who are putting their lives on the line. If all Australians will do this into the future, we have absolutely nothing to be concerned about. Channelling that which encourages self-interest has us in deep trouble.
NAIDOC week has been postponed until 8 – 15 November. It is especially important that as many of us as possible support the Voice from the heart. You can do this by using the link to the Indigenous Law Centre the University of NSW firstname.lastname@example.org I encourage everyone to do so.
Below is the text of the statement
We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:
Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.
This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.
How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?
With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.
Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.
Will Technology save us?
Praise should rightly be attributed to those whose advice has led Australia well through the pointy end of the Covid 19 pandemic. But now that we are beginning to glimpse life post the pandemic, are plans being laid in embryonic form worthy of the same praise, or are we already falling back to tired, binary, ideologically driven strategies?
Dan Tehan’s vision for fiscally supported priority to Stem based tertiary education (science technology, engineering, mathematics) should not be met with acquiescence from university Vice Chancellors and boards, simply on the basis of a funding deal. Much is yet to be worked through, but the thrust of the plan is clear. Post Covid 19, universities should major on Stem courses with a view to job creation.
I do not wish to argue against priority being given to employment. The fulfilment of individuals, and the prosperity of the nation, crucially depends on all having the opportunity for gainful employment.
I am not competent to talk about the details or speculate whether the higher cost of non-Stem subjects will deter enrolments or be a fiscal bonanza for universities. I want to address the principle that lies behind the proposal.
I want to argue that employment is the outcome of something far more important, namely the formation of rounded, thinking, socially responsible, and well-adjusted individuals. I do not think for one moment Dan Tehan is on the looney right of his party, but it appears there are many on his side of politics who do not want rounded, thinking, socially responsible individuals. Perhaps fear of such people is the reason why members on the government bench continue to undermine the ABC.
We are living through a most troubling period of history. Technology can and will help us. So, go to it you Stem gifted people. But if we are to rely on technology to solve all human challenges and failures, even climate change, our prospects are not very bright. To solve most of our challenges, we are going to need humans to behave rationally, cooperatively, with the capacity to think through the issues we face; adopting strategies which may not meet our needs in the short term, but will lay the foundations for a sustainable future in the long term. At present that is not what we generally do. We look for immediate black and white remedies to complex problems. We seek advantage to ourselves seemingly unaware that we depend upon advantage being equally shared globally. We hop on twitter or Facebook and make banal (and worse) comments about issues that we lack the capacity to think through.
Most world leaders who frighten us, including Trump and Xi, trade on fear and confrontation. Only those individuals, groups and nations with wit, calm and capacity to be rational, will be able to steer through these turbulent waters. How is this to be achieved?
We human beings were not born yesterday; we have millennia of existence behind us. Our problems are contemporary versions of problems that have always beset us. “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.” It is willful ignorance not to want to understand how great minds have wrestled with the human condition in the past, from Plato and Aristotle, to Augustine and Aquinas, to Locke and Hobbes. What roles do competition and cooperation play in the human enterprise? In the past, what have been the consequences of one prevailing at the cost of the other? What does history show us about the balance between individual rights and social contract? What is human wealth? What is worth striving for? What has happened in the past when the equity gap between the few who are rich and the majority who are poor continues to expand? Have the wealthy always attained their wealth at the expense of the poor? Etc.
Hugh McKay is arguably Australia’s most eminent sociologist and demographer, his data and reflections on Australian life should be compulsory reading. Peter Hatcher is one of Australia’s most eminent journalists and writers. What he and other like him say and think is vital to us all.
The arts do not simply entertain us, they have the capacity to draw us into life transforming narrative.
Understanding the part that religion plays in hearts and minds, and the contribution it should make in the evolving place humanity occupies on the planet would be wise, even for those in whom faith plays absolutely no part.
Investing in stem subjects at the expense of non-stem subjects generates little confidence that human future will be any less storm riven than the immediate past. Technology must not be the tail that wags the dog. We need first to grapple with the kind of society we would like to be and seek from technology solutions which will enhance this direction. Just because something becomes technologically possible it does not mean it is desirable.
Will technology make humanity happier, more content, more fulfilled? No, not in and of itself. If Covid 19 has taught us anything, relating is everything. What makes us happy are those elements of life which help relationships flourish, that give us a sense of belonging, that free us from the rush and bustle of an exclusively work orientated life.
I have found the following a useful scale to value education.
Data collection lies at the base of the education pyramid. Data multiplies exponentially and its acquisition does not make one educated. (Data can usually be picked up digitally when required). Some data contributes to useful information.
Information is not in itself sufficient for tasks other than menial ones. Information needs to be converted into knowledge, which is usually attained through experience and mentoring. Knowledge is essential to a practitioner in any field if their competence is to be trusted. Knowledge is also the soil from which wisdom grows.
Wisdom enables a well lived and meaningful life. The love of wisdom is the motivation of the philosopher. For a person of faith, it is the first born of creation, and for a Christian, incarnately present in Jesus.
Wisdom is insight, the world flocks to the door of those who possess it. It is a noble aspiration to be technologically competent. But technology without wisdom will not save us. Stem subjects at tertiary level need to be set within the context of this more noble aspiration, in partnership with non-stem subjects which are given equal value.
The Necessity of ‘Voice from the Heart’
“If you have come here to help me you are wasting your time, but if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” ― Lilla Watson.
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the high-profile Alice Springs city councillor, makes an important point that far more Indigenous people die as a result of violence at home, than at the hands of law enforcement. The same could be said of child abuse, far more children suffer abuse at the hands of fathers, uncles, brothers, grandfathers etc than from custodians of institutions. That is quite true. But is it the right point?
Jacinta’s point, made on Sky News, was in response to the ‘Black lives Matter’ protests. She argued that protesters were being self-indulgent, that they should look to their own backyard and get this terrible family-based reality sorted before focussing outside. It is true that domestic violence in indigenous communities is at epidemic proportions, but is her point at all helpful in this context?
It seems impertinent to be arguing against a person who claims a proud Aboriginal/Celtic heritage. However, with respect, she seriously misses the point, or perhaps glosses over it, for the sake of supporting a conservative political ideology. The reality is that when people are oppressed, when dignity is gone, when identity is denied, when loss and degradation has been systematic; the complex web of societal and cultural safeguards, taken for granted since time immemorial, become broken. Is anyone going to seriously suggest that family brutality was endemic within the indigenous population prior to white settlement? Of course not, societal norms were grounded and respected in highly developed customary law. This is not to defend indefensibility, but it is to say that ordering people to ‘pull themselves together’, while they live without meaning, purpose, or dignity, separated from custom, is patronising and misplaced.
When George Floyd was dying, he cried “I cannot breathe”, for him this was literally true, but for his people it has been metaphorically true for generations. 24 months ago when I was in Hebron, the largest Arab city on the Palestinian West Bank, the Palestinians said to me “the occupation and settlements are choking us”.
More than a decade ago I visited Deepsloot refugee camp not far from Pretoria, South Africa. It was a place of absolute squaller and desolation. The behaviour of men towards women in the camp was appalling. Nothing can defend brutality and sexual exploitation; however, it is one thing to condemn this behaviour, but quite another to address economic, social, and cultural inequity and loss, which underlies hopelessness. Being suffocated by oppression with loss of societal norms is a global phenomenon.
Black deaths in custody may not be the most accurate numerical indicator of the level of suffering and abuse experienced by Australia’s indigenous community, but they speak to the power base that refuses to address, or is ineptly incapable of addressing, underlying and continuing dislocation and loss. This ineptness, or cultural bias, looks exaggerated when not one single case of death in custody has been successfully prosecuted.
It is true that many indigenous deaths in custody have resulted from suicide and therefore, in theory at least, the judicial system and its officers are absolved from responsibility. However, even with a little knowledge of indigenous culture, and one should fairly assume that judicial officers are trained, it is clear that locking an indigenous person alone is highly dangerous. Australian indigenous, like indigenous everywhere, understand their identity through community – self is nothing outside community – and community is of course inclusive of country.
This matter, as much as anything else, is the heart of the problem and why attempted assimilation through the ’stolen generation’ became such a disastrous scandal, no matter how misguided the intention. No doubt many future studies will examine cultural change initiated by COVID 19 isolation. It is already clear that Australians want higher investment in meaningful relationship building. Is it possible that Australia and Australian society will now draw back from the precipice of social disintegration wrought through an over emphasis on the individual, and the minimisation of societal common good, rooted in our economic system? If so, it may well be the case that an indirect consequence of the pandemic is that, finally, White Australia wakes to the truth that we have culturally more to learn from indigenous Australians, than they have to learn from us; and that this learning is what will ‘bridge the gap’ in a way that white devised targets in health, education, longevity etc never can.
It is for this reason that a “Voice” to parliament is absolutely crucial, not simply for the sake of indigenous people, but for the sake of us all. I realise that the shape of the “Voice “ is yet to be finalised, but let there be no doubt it needs to happen. Minister Ken Wyatt, take courage and bring a referendum to the people before the next election, it is needed for all our sakes.
“If you have come here to help me you are wasting your time, but if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” ― Lilla Watson
(Lilla Watson is a Gangulu woman who grew up on the Dawson River, Central Queensland, her "Mother's country").
Trump vs Christianity
I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies…but let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an everlasting stream. Amos 5: 21-24
Nothing could be more dreadful than the murder of George Floyd, under the watchful eye of supposed custodians of law and order. But as a commentary on this evil, Trump holding a bible outside St John’s Episcopal Church, having tear gassed a pathway to its door, speaks as clearly as anything might about the spiral into decay of a proud nation. Thank goodness the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, Bishop Mariann Budde, immediately chastised the president for this outrage. “Let me be clear”, she stated, “the President just used a Bible, the most sacred text of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and one of the churches of my diocese, without permission, as a backdrop for a message antithetical to the things of Jesus”.
If it were not so serious, the news clip of Trump tear gassing a pathway to the Church together with the officially released White House video would, in other circumstance, be an episode from the Chaser, the rather disrespectful, but humorous take on current affairs.
But this was not funny, it was an outrageous attempt to appropriate Christianity for divisive political ends. But who was the intended audience? Who was presumed to be impressed? The dreadful truth is that the intended audience was Trump’s political base, American Evangelical Christianity.
The collapse of the county’s moral base is staggering. As a letter to the SMH editor cynically said, “I suppose it was inevitable that having invaded so many other countries, America would eventually invade itself”. What supposedly is the US’ moral base – well Trump clearly thinks it is Evangelical Christianity. The calamity now being experienced by the US is not simply that it is imploding, with deep chasms in its civil society, but that Christianity is being appropriated for strategies, power plays, ideologies, accomplishments that are the very antithesis of Christian faith. American Evangelical Christianity appears to have fallen into a mix of prosperity gospel, conspiracy theories, dualism, fundamentalism, individualism, and general attitudes and behaviours antithetical to the life and teaching of Jesus.
Trump, how dare you. But perhaps it is not your fault. The US philosopher Sam Harris, darling of American humanists and CEO of Project Reason says freewill is an illusion. Is Trump a tragic caricature, a puppet? So Trump, are you the single most significant contributor to this decay, or are you a creation of it? Has American evangelicalism created you? The cartoon of a person coming up behind Trump and offering him a Bible to which he responds, “What’s in it, does it mention me” just about sums it up. Those who most want to thump others with the bible; about the evils of environmental responsibility, or the rights of the LGBTQI community, or who want to make war against Muslims, or call a terrorist anyone who gets in the way of America’s grand design, are the ones who seem to have the least knowledge of it.
If the US and China are the powers between which Australia must choose its future, which is more dangerous, which might be more reliable? Is it better to trust a communist country with an ideology that is an affront to the values we espouse: freedom of speech, democracy, liberality, respecting difference, protecting minorities: or is it better to put our trust in a country which claims values and a moral base which are clearly an illusion?
Is Trump’s recourse to ‘fake’ (his strategy to fend off truth), a pathway he stumbled into because it suits his pugnacious style, or is it something more frightening? Is it an unintended reflection of an inner realisation, conscious or otherwise, that the moral foundation upon which he relies, US evangelical Christianity is itself fake?
The time has come to stop pussyfooting around. Just as Muslims worldwide have been expected to stand up against the appropriation of their religion by extremist ideologies that have expressed themselves in various forms of terror, so the Christian community must make it clear that Christ and the Gospel will not be sullied.
Christianity is not about individual rights. It is about responsibilities that reside in being part of a body: be that body the family, the local community, the nation, or as importantly, the global community . Individual rights must always defer to reciprocity within communal life. Asserting rights that privilege some and diminish others can never be condoned in Christian life. Those who promote gun rights need to hear Jesus’ word to Peter, “put your sword back in its sheath”. Jn 18:11
Christianity is not about prosperity; it is absolutely not about prosperity being a sign of God’s blessing. Christianity is about being a blessing, it is about investing in the good.
Christianity abhors ‘justice’ achieved through the prevailing, or dominating, of the strong and the vanquishing of the weak. Justice demands upholding equality. It demands respect. In Jesus, difference has been levelled. There is to be no bond or free, no male or female, no Jew or Gentile. US evangelicals are wrong and immoral to promote the rise of Israel through the vanquishing of Palestinians, anymore than whites should prevail at the expense of blacks. God’s ways can never be claimed through such injustice. By doing so, US evangelicals have positioned themselves against the God known to us in Jesus who knows no benefit to some at the expense of others.
Christianity is rooted in the incarnation of Jesus, in the reality that humanity is divinely rooted in the whole created order. So called creation science, a short view of history and commitment to the dominance of humanity over the rest of the created order is not biblical. Trump can claim no Christian base for raping the planet under the banner of “America First”. Creation science is a lie and should not be given airtime, any more than conspiracy theories should be given airtime, accept of course on Fox.
There is a great deal at stake here. Christianity is the story of redemption, of peace, of hope. Its truth deserves to be heard. If folk are to reject Christianity, please at least hear it first. Its truth will blow you away, its art will inspire you, its acts of kindness will transform you and its God of grace will embrace you with life in all its fullness.
The Cost of Humiliation: Germany, Israel, China, Trump
Bullying and abuse have a devastating effect on individuals, often leading to serious mental health issues, even suicide. By way of contrast, the cost of humiliation inflicted on tribes or nations is frequently borne through an overwhelming responsive need to assert pride in national or tribal identity, with a fierce determination that this will not happen again. The consequence can be unreasonable justification for aggressive standpoints, even retaliation, conflict, and a continuing cycle of violence.
At the end of the apartheid era in South Africa, the country was saved from the terrible consequences of black humiliation by the grace-filled leadership of its first black president, Nelson Mandela, and the success of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Unfortunately retaliatory action is more often the norm.
The 1919 Treaty of Versailles which concluded WW1 humiliated Germany, especially the clause which impugned ‘war guilt’ and required massive reparation for civilian damage. Piece by piece the treaty unravelled, but the humiliation imposed through the treaty, fed the psyche of Adolf Hitler and all the consequences that flowed from his and his follower belief in the superiority of the Aryan race. Had WW1 concluded with a treaty that built bonds of freedom and prosperity across Europe, would there have been WW2? We will never know.
The consequences of WW2 fell upon the whole world, but none suffered more terribly than the Jewish people. It is estimated that two thirds of Europe’s Jewish population, 6 million, were slaughtered along with gays, Romani, and various ethnic groups. Would this cruel search for a ‘pure Aryan race’, unpolluted by lesser humans, have occurred without the national psyche having been first trodden on following the end of the war? We will never know. What is clear is that victors in any dispute, big or small, have a responsibility to enable the vanquished to stand tall. This is a trait frighteningly absent from most global leaders who relish victory and the exultation of self. Australians have paid a high price for the humiliation felt by a succession of political leaders over the last two decades.
We do know that the holocaust has become the defining event in the creation of Israel and its memory is sacrosanct. The celebration of the Shoah is entirely understandable, even necessary. However, is building a national identity out of response to a catastrophe as terrible as the holocaust the healthiest way to build national identity? Israel is determined to ensure it will never again need to rely upon anyone for security. In Israel, ‘security’ justifies everything, walls, checkpoints, land grabs, lockdowns, and leads to the humiliation of others- the Palestinians. Arbitrary identity papers, burdensome checkpoints, limited essential service, restricted movement etc have little to do with security and everything to do with humiliation.
The problem for Israel’s children is that this humiliation, like all humiliations, will continue to fester and one day an account will need to be given for it. The problem for the rest of the world is that in the meantime criticising Israel will be called antisemitic. Could Israel adopt the words emblazoned on the entrance wall to the holocaust museum in Soweto, South Africa, and teach them to its children as boldly as it admonishes them to remember the Shoah: To be free is not to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.
Another country to consciously shape itself out of what it perceives to have been national humiliation is China. It perceives its humiliation at the hands of the British, French, and Japanese, in particular, to have lasted for more than 100 years, concluding at the end of WW2. This sense of past national humiliation is fostered amongst the people by the Communist Party and is used to justify unquestioning support for the government and its policies, by its people. Questioning is not to be tolerated, as the people of Hong Kong are painfully being shown.
In the last few weeks, the Australian government has felt the full force of rhetoric from the Chinese government that interprets every communication or engagement through this lens. What is understood to be reasonable to a Western mind is interpreted as insult by the Chinese authorities. Ironically, the sense of humiliation is so deeply entrenched in the Chinese psyche, that even today while the rest of the world considers China a strong and powerful nation, many Chinese still behave as though they are the ones being bullied and mistreated, with a watchful eye for “hostile foreign forces.”
South China Sea expansions, sovereignty sought over Taiwan and Hong Kong, the belt and road programme, are all strategies to engender intense national pride. The Chinse people are even encouraged to see the somewhat belligerent acts of their governing elite as righting the wrongs of the past and swinging the pendulum in the right direction.
How is Australia and the rest of the world to respond to the flawed and bruised psyche of what is now the world’s most dominant power? Is its global responsibility to tip-toe around China’s need to fully requite its sense of humiliation, or is it China’s role to take its place as one of the great peoples of the world, free of past burdens, celebrating extraordinary accomplishments, knowing that ‘setting the record straight’, like a politician’s, autobiography, is almost inevitably diminishment?
And then there is Trump. There can be little doubt he acts out of his constantly bruised ego. The mainline press does not fawn over him and are declared fake. Numerous appointees have dared to present a different perspective and are sacked. His predecessor, President, Obama, for all his shortcomings, was everything he is not, and has become Trump’s paranoid obsession. (The Obama speech at the 2011 correspondent’s dinner probably did not help)!
In 2016 Trump promised his followers they would win so often they would become sick of winning. Winning is relatively easy if you are stronger, hold more resources, or perhaps simply have a bigger megaphone. Creating a better world because of winning is much harder. Above all, if winning means the diminishment of others, this is extremely dangerous. ‘America first’, or any one first. is a very flawed slogan.
It takes a strong person to absorb the slings and arrows of others and not pay back. Forgiveness is the workplace of the strong, not the weak. On this definition the world’s ‘strong men’ Trump, Xi, Orban, Bolsonaro, Netanyahu, Erdogan, Assad are in reality the world’s weak men. Covid 19 has revealed the strong, they have been the creative faces of the lockdown, medical workers, shop assistants, carers of various kinds and perhaps a few world leaders exemplified by Prime Minister Ardern. In a post Covid 19 world, may care prevail, and winning diminish as a goal. Most of all, may winning not cause diminishment of others.
Australia’s two personalities
In recent domestic policy and international engagement Australia is demonstrating two contrasting personalities. One is demonstrated through our response to COVID 19 and the other through our troubled inability to form responsible climate and energy policy. Why do we have two personalities?
Australia rightly deserves praise for its handling of the COVID 19 crisis. The creation of a national cabinet across political ideology, was a brilliant strategy. Ensuring that national response was driven by scientific advice was critical. Linking economic revival to success on the health front has been vital to stem populist right wing views that the economy must come first. (The result of this false dichotomy is all too tragically clear in the US where both the nation’s health and economy are pitiable). The role of PM, Health Ministers, Premiers, Medical officers has been praise-worthy. This combined leadership has saved Australia’s frontline health workers from what would otherwise have been a catastrophic situation. Sure, we were not as prepared as we should have been, Essential personal protection equipment was frighteningly scarce, but strong leadership has enabled good fortune.
Transporting this domestic good work into the international arena has seen Australia take a major lead in the establishment of an independent investigation into the origins and management of the pandemic. Marise Payne has come into strong criticism for acting pre-emptively, and causing grief to Australia’s China export market. But surely China’s response has justified the action. China is a bully. Its domestic human rights record is shameful. Are we to endure a world in which China treats the rest of the global population as suppliants, with hands outstretched in gratitude to receive meagre gifts? The language and threats emanating from the Chinese ambassador to Australia were outrageous, and indefensible. No, the behaviour of bullies should not be tolerated.
Clearly Australia played a major role in achieving a resolution, ultimately signed by China, which asks for this investigation to occur as soon as possible. It is not independent of the WHO, as Australia may have originally liked, but having 145 nations co-sponsor, has been a remarkable achievement. In light of failed leadership from the US and China, middle powers have stood up and achieved an outcome in the best interests of the globe. (Is this a hopeful sign of the future, given the chaos of the US and China’s belligerence)? There needs to be an investigation, not to apportion blame, or punish, but to learn and hopefully prevent such a pandemic repeating itself in the future. Not to have had an investigation would have been utterly irresponsible.
In the pandemic context Australia has stepped up and taken a leading role. In the context of the globe’s even more serious crisis, global warming, Australia has not only failed to lead, but has done its best to be a wrecker of global consensus. Australia is consistently ranked as one of the worst performers in terms of Climate Change policy, 56th out of 61 countries. Last year Australia was linked with Brazil and the US as one of the three nations who have probably caused the door to be closed on a hoped-for restriction on global warming to 1.5 degrees. Our actions will prove to have been a major contributor to this failure and the cost that will be borne by future generations. Given all the opportunities we have on this continent to move away from fossil fuels, with the concomitant chance to grow a more vibrant, regionally based, technologically diverse economy, our behaviour can only be described as grossly irresponsible.
Unlike our response to COVID 19, we have refused to follow scientific advice. A mockery has been made of modelling, the very technique that has enabled us to respond so well in face of the pandemic. Those who watched Four Corners on Monday night, 18 May, will have observed the pain and dismay of senior scientists and bureaucrats who lived through the wasted decades of Australia’s political infighting on this matter. Australia’s lack of energy policy must rank as the worst and most costly policy disaster of our lifetime. That any doubt may still linger that this malaise was driven by ideological absurdity, not by rationality, science, or even the hoped for good of the nation, we need simply to be reminded that Tony Abbot called talk of environmental responsibility – socialism.
And now we have been offered Angus Taylor’s “technological road map”. Yes, coal is missing and, at last, there appears to be an assumption that science is right. So what is the problem?
The problem lies with the objective. The objective with the COVID 19 response was to immediately ‘flatten the curve’. What should the objective be here? It should be similar, to flatten the curve of global warming and the emissions that underlie it, as quickly as possible. Is that objective clear? On the contrary. We have still refused to rule out the use of our so called ‘Kyoto credits’. We are still refusing to lift our 26 percent reduction target by 2030. Science makes it clear that zero by 2050 will be too late, there will already be too much carbon in the atmosphere. We are setting ourselves an impossible task of meeting our obligations. Taylor’s objective remains to further Australia’s business interests without setting those interests into the context of emission reduction urgency.
Angus Taylor is not surrounding himself with the best scientists, but with captains of industry, especially the mining industry.
Angus Taylor, nothing less will suffice than setting emission targets toward net zero by the 2040’s and encouraging the flourishing of Australia’s business interests in that context. If this is done, we will not be transitioning through uncertain decades of attempted carbon sequestration from gas. Hydrogen may well be the go-to energy of the future , but it must be extracted using renewable energy sources. Because there has been no cogent climate policy, we no longer have the luxury of transition periods. Had we adopted a policy guided by science when John Howard first came to power in 1996 it would be a different matter.
Business has consistently made it clear that they can live with targets. As long as they are consistent, investment can be made on their basis. It is therefore infuriating that government still refuses to regulate a platform upon which this can become a reality. Science has not failed us. Independent public servants with the good of the country at heart have not failed us. Politics and politicians have failed us.
Facing the COVID 19 pandemic politicians across party-lines have stood up and done what politicians are paid to do, lead, and regulate. Why is this so difficult in climate and energy policy?
Energy and climate policy require the same: politicians who will stand up, lead, and regulate. A pathway festooned with already known technologies into an indefinite and undefined future is not enough. We know what we need to do, and the timeframe in which we must do it. Earn your pay and lead with this objective in mind.
The Power of Narrative
Nakba, Annexation and Anti-Semitism
The thread running through these realities is not hard to follow.
Historical details of the 1948/1949 Arab Israeli conflict are highly contested, as is the manner and implication of Britain’s withdrawal. But the indisputable facts are that 400 – 600 Palestinian villages were raised, Palestinian urban life was virtually wiped out and a majority of those who fled, or were driven out, have been denied any right to return, despite the fact that many still sleep on a pillow under which rest the keys to their still cherished home.
There can be no doubt that the holocaust stands amongst the most horrific crimes of the modern era and one of the worst ever to be perpetrated by humanity against fellow human beings. So horrendous was this evil that minimising it, or denying it, is aptly described as a crime. However, because this was so awful, there has been a tendency to down-play or minimise, by comparison, other crimes against humanity. This is particularly true of the Nakba which has been downplayed and minimised all too often by international media. It is an inconvenient truth. The State of Israel requires the minimising or downplaying of Palestinian suffering to promote its colonising strategy without accruing opprobrium. To admit a majority Palestinian population prior to WW2 with cultural rights, property rights, and historical connection to the land which European colonisers could never claim, is to undermine the Zionist settlement enterprise. International law, constantly re-enforced through UN resolutions, requires that these rights are honoured and protected. Israel, with the protective covering of the US and the shameful acquiescence of Australia, denies any breaking of international law, implying these rights do not exist.
It is rightly a crime to minimise or deny the holocaust, but equally it is becoming a crime in Israel to support the facts of history, that the Palestinian people have suffered the Nakba, and that the Nakba continues to be perpetrated. To lay bare these truths is to be inflicted with the antisemitic slur.
For some time, Netanyahu has been promoting the annexation of the Jordan Valley, even proposing a timeline for its implementation. The Jordan Valley is a significant proportion of the West Bank and is its most fertile - it is called the food bowl of Palestine. When the Oslo accord was struck in the 1990’s there was to be a five-year transition towards Palestinian sovereignty. To facilitate progress, the Palestinian Authority was established, and the West Bank areas A, B and C were created. Area C, the majority of the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley remains, to this day, totally under Israeli control. In area C it is virtually impossible for a Palestinian to gain a building permit, on the contrary hundreds of houses, even whole communities, have been demolished. Clearly Israel seeks a cleansing of Palestinians from Area C. Cleansing enables the exponential expansion of settlement communities on Palestinian land, further thwarting the delivery of a two-State solution. On a daily basis, these settlers harass, demean, burn, destroy, the property and lives of the Palestinian community with the same motive in mind, to cleanse the area of the Palestinian population.
The proposed annexation of the Jordan Valley makes this motive abundantly clear. The Nakba is far from concluded. Annexation in the Wes Bank was a central plank in the recent negotiation for an Israeli unity party. Annexation is occurring in fact, even if not yet finally declared. It is clear the dominant political parties in Israel have no intention of supporting a two-State solution. If there are not to be two States, then there is one State.
The incremental continuation of the Nakba, the involuntary removal of Palestinian people and the denial of their human rights, must come to an end. But how is this going to happen? It has been suggested the Palestinian leadership might abandon the Palestinian Authority, hand back whatever limited responsibility they have retained (largely exercised on behalf of Israel) and tell Israel they can annex everything with a view to the establishment of a bi-cultural, prosperous, democratic state. This is of course exactly what Israel’s political interests do not want. They do not want to include Palestinians as equals in a democratic society. Israel’s political leadership want maximum Palestinian geography with minimal demography. They wish the Palestinian population to be corralled into tiny pockets with no contiguous connection and with absolutely no capacity to develop a viable, vibrant, autonomous state.
Israel must defend its actions against the claim that it is deploying ethnic cleansing and establishing an apartheid state. If these charges are inaccurate, a dreadful distortion of truth, explain why. What words would better describe the present Israeli strategy?
Let me conclude where I began, with the continuing struggle of Israeli politics for a dominant moral narrative against a background which contradicts it. Facts do not matter if you possess a winning narrative.
I warmly commend Sophie McNeil’s recent book, “We can’t say we didn’t know”. Her anecdotal accounts throw light upon Middle Eastern struggles (and foreign meddling) from Yemen to Syria. Her chapter on Palestine reveals what we already know, Israel will use every tool at its disposal to insist that its narrative must be accepted and believed and any who dare to publicise facts showing the narrative to be threadbare are to be reviled, condemned and if possible punished.
Yes of course there are many other scandalous atrocities in the world, but this is the only one that I am aware of where my government continues to intervene in defense of the oppressor.