“The promotional video shows racks of white power-storage batteries …” a report on ABC’s AM said this morning. Your correspondent heard it as “white-power storage” because the previous story had been yet another report on the bizarre, pernicious, utterly racist “white South African farmer” problem.
Here’s the point this vile issue has got to: Nationals MP Andrew Broad is opposing the notion that we should offer special immigration visas to white South African farmers not because it is an act of racist skin-selection — ho no — but because the farmers are too important to South African food production. The black farmers haven’t “proved themselves”, he noted, charmingly.
In the Senate, David Leyonhjelm has been running hard on the issue, having — surprise, surprise — spent some time in South Africa. The “libertarian purist” is an old-fashioned social engineering statist when it comes to colour and culture, telling the Senate that white South Africans would “integrate better” than Rohingya Muslims.
Who else has popped up to defend the rights of this sadly oppressed group? Oh, it’s Andrew Hastie, member for Canning in Perth’s outer southern suburbs — and a base for decades of white South Africans and Zimbabweans, the latter starting to arrive after Rhodesia became Zimbabwe in 1980.
But it is, unbelievably, even more cynical than that. The right are competing for Australian-South African support all right, but it’s also a culture war play. By finding a white group that can be defined as a cultural minority, the right can try and push back against opposition to the mandatory detention regime, and the demand for greater humanitarian intake.
It’s a measure of how hideous this whole proposal is that the cynical explanation — it’s just about numbers and the base — is more decent than the ideological explanation: a racist concern for the lives of whites over and above those of different skin colour. At least that racist conception is out in the open now.
Were there a specific cultural group somewhere, that happened to be white, while those around them weren’t, and were under threat of massacre and mass violence, there would be a case to treat them the same way we treat other persecuted groups: i.e. with grudging minimal assistance, some limited resettlement, and years-long detention of those who arrive irregularly.
But the “white farmer” crisis is a beat-up. For a start, why do “white farmers” scattered across a country count as a distinct group? Why is this not a matter for internal South African policing policy? To identify such a group amounts to an intervention in the internal affairs of a parliamentary democracy.
Secondly, the figures are spurious. Right-wing South African politicians have quoted a figure of 133 murders per 100,000 per year for farmers. There are 250,000 farms, white and black-owned, in South Africa, and 2.9 million agricultural households.
There were 74 farm murders, including white and black, in 2015/2016.
Meanwhile, in South Africa as a whole, there are around 40-50 people murdered each day. An inner-city area such as Hillbrow — the size of Kingston or Woollahra or Fitzroy — has 103 murders a year. Many of its residents are targeted for being central African work-migrants. Where’s their visa?
No? Because of course that’s not what it’s about. The content of this “white farmer” push is not merely racist — it is, as Broad’s clumsy comments show, actively racialist*. It constructs white South Africans as “better specimens”, in the old language. It’s been implicit in the indifference to non-white suffering that is part of our refugee policy. The rush to favour white farmers, off confected statistics, and with no clamour for them to come here, at least makes that explicit. White power storage indeed.
*I don’t actually think Andrew Broad is saying that black farmers are “naturally” inferior; he’s taking the oft-argued position that they lack the experience to run agribusiness-style farms. Maybe. But they also lack the capital and support, built up by white farmer families over generations. But it is ugly language, cutting with an ugly grain.
I’m happy to see you going hard on this one Guy. It just shows the underlying ugliness that they have been doing their best to keep in the closet all these times.
They are unreconstructed in their thinking, entirely not getting this idea of equality, or justice, or fairness, regardless of race, colour, religion etc. The cats out of the bag, keep it coming Guy.
.mmm. Why doesn’t the discussion consider what is in place vis a vis immigration currently?
“The “libertarian purist” is an old-fashioned social engineering statist when it comes to colour and culture, telling the Senate that white South Africans would “integrate better” than Rohingya Muslims.”
Well one can foresee an argument in this regard but on the other hand the matter OUGHT to turn upon skills possessed and, if the criterion is to be observed, an assessment with reference to the citizen questionnaire (pertaining to Australia). Most of the questions are absurd but the question (real in fact – but I’ve modified it slightly) “Provide an example of freedom of speech” would be useful. The questions could be undertaken in the native language of the applicant.
“Who else has popped up to defend the rights of this sadly oppressed group? Oh, it’s Andrew Hastie, member for Canning in Perth’s outer southern suburbs — and a base for decades of white South Africans and Zimbabweans, the latter starting to arrive after Rhodesia became Zimbabwe in 1980.”
Then Hastie is doing his job Guy. I’m sure the Member will appreciate you pointing out his conscientiousness to his electorate.
“At least that racist conception is out in the open now.”
You haven’t made an argument to this effect at all! Any country requires an immigration policy that has be in the short and long term interests of the country.
The remark “By finding a white group that can be defined as a cultural minority” WAS the argument in the 60s & 70s that the whites ought to leave Nigeria, Kenya, Rhodesia and South Africa to the natives – although more PC terms exist nowadays.
“the “white farmer” crisis is a beat-up.” Agreed but NOT for the reasons that you state.
“why do “white farmers” scattered across a country count as a distinct group?”
Why does the Country Party in Australia exist?
“Why is this not a matter for internal South African policing policy?”
Excellent question! Answer : what happened to the infrastructure when black-majority rule occurred?
“To identify such a group amounts to an intervention in the internal affairs of a parliamentary democracy.”
That is slapping it on way too thick Guy although, I concede, globally, contrary to the Treaty of Westphalia the apparent right of any country to jab its orr into the affairs of another country is becoming de rigueur; a practice that, will end in tears with some version of the Thirty Years’ War repeating itself if I’m not mistaken.
“There were 74 farm murders, including white and black, in 2015/2016.” And what would be the response if this situation prevailed in Oz/NZ ?
“Meanwhile, in South Africa as a whole, there are around 40-50 people murdered each day. An inner-city area such as Hillbrow — the size of Kingston or Woollahra or Fitzroy — has 103 murders a year. Many of its residents are targeted for being central African work-migrants. Where’s their visa?”
yep : see the point made above. But you have also overlooked the TRIBALISM!
“The content of this “white farmer” push is not merely racist”
If ‘We are all Keynesians now’ as Friedman put it (and as Nixon exploited the phrase)then we’re probably “all racists now”! You’re correct : the topic is a ‘beat-up’ for expediency, photo opportunities or whatever. But running about with your bucket of tar and a broom isn’t helping the situation. In fact the behaviour is no more constructive that that of those effecting the “beat-up”.
You are confusing refugee policy with immigration policy.
I’m suggesting that they BOTH need to be revisited as world events change (and hitherto unforeseen situations) but such as a small subset of my submission. Neither immigration policy or refugee policy should be considered as static.
You missed the point entirely with Rundle’s criticism of Leyonhjelm. An actual libertarian would back the freedom of movement for all, and not want meddlesome big government immigration policies weeding out undesirables.
If such is as you clam why do you assert that I “missed the point”? Believe it or not legislation exists to flick dual citizens for various offenses. I’ll bet my teddy bear that the legislation will be amended to evicting former citizens for stipulated offenses. I’m not suggesting that the legislation has been applied intelligently or consistently.
Given all the security legislation that exists, a major obligation of responsible government departments is to “weed out undesirables”. Maybe utopia does exist somewhere.
The LNP’s primary interest in importing White South Africans is because they are also automatically importing LNP supporters.
That, as been said previously, and shoving a big dirty stick up the progressives.
NUDIEFISH: I wondered when someone would come out with the obvious “is because they are also automatically importing LNP supporters.” Well done.
Well strictly no Venise. It has been pointed out that the new immigrants might vote for whomever gave them a hand. If the Greens were less precious (and less NIMBYist) about immigrants the votes might have gone to them. As it stands it could be LNP.
Peter Dutton’s humanitarian campaign to import white farmers has a significant flaw. 400 were not murdered last year. Think about it Peter, it would have been global news; and therefore not an announcement by a minister in the OZ government barely known outside of this country that would brought the issue to unsavoury prominence.
However he can make amends by offering visas to tens of thousands of city dwellers in Jo’berg who are subject to violence on a daily basis, with 50 murders, 700 assaults, 35 aggravated robberies and 150 rapes per day. Now these folk would welcome a new life; so its’ a pity the overwhelming majority of them are black and seemly don’t fit Peter Dutton’s criteria.
Well stated Guy. What a boon to the good administration of our country are the Duttons and Leyonhjelms of this world. Andrew Hastie probably thinks he’s on to a good thing promoting the interests of white South Africans in his electorate. I have news for him. The statistics he probably relies on won’t tell him this but some of those South Africans aren’t white. The numerous other not-white voters in his electorate might not be impressed either. Social divisiveness can work electorally in the short term but in a single electorate he risks turning off as many voters as he attracts.