 
### Collected Poems

... **&**

Philosophical Essays

Copyright © 2016 by Dr. Paul W. Mathews

Published in Australia in 2016 by Warrior Publishers at Smashwords

Trantran83@hotmail.com

ePub version ISBN 9781310395543

The moral right of the author/s has been asserted.

This work is fiction. All characters, events and places in this publication, other than those clearly in the public domain, have been altered and any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, or to any place, event or thing is purely coincidental.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the publisher or author, nor be otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

NON-FICTION

Smashwords Edition License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your enjoyment only, then please return to Smashwords.com or your favorite retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

First published in 1976 by Arthur H. Stockwell Ltd, Great Britain

ISBN 72230735-7

"My Heart Aches": ISBN: 0 7223 0906-6
Table of Contents

My Heart Aches...

The War Machine

True

Love Is...

EVOL...EVOL...EVOL...EVOL...

Tomorrow ?

Tug-O'-War

ASSOCIATION

I Think It's Beautiful

Why ?

The End

Anthem to Australia

For Those Left Behind...

A Day in the Ward

Images of Public Servitude

—A Reflection

Land Rights for Gay Whales

Political Correctness or Ideology Under the Mat ?

—An Essay

Lost in (Third) Space

How I Lost My Ethnic Identity

—An Essay

About Paul Mathews

Other work by Paul Mathews

About Warrior Publishers

Why Warrior ?

My Heart Aches...

Like a winter stream

O'erflowed my love.

I have loved,

and will love no more:

as a summer stream

cease to flow.

My heart aches,

a numbness pains;

my chest,

a vacant spot

hollow

like a coffee pot

pours forth till drained,

like tears turned solid,

I grow to stone.

The War Machine

A flick of the switch and the thing is on,

Spewing out hatred as it hobbles along,

Wringing life of its peace and joy;

So vain is the course of this ludicrous toy.

The still steaming jungle brings up what it's fed,

As the war machine's fathers look down at the dead;

And they stand there in silence, transfixed as they stare,

And ponder the price of their little toy's fare.

As the tinny wheels creak, the sand dunes reek

With the stench of heaped bodies at the foot of the sea.

And the tide of all life is drawn out at dawn

To the sound of the Red man's glee.

The thronging crowds mill, there to condemn

The pretty machine's despatchment of men.

The trespassing's wrong, how can they condone?

Won't they please take their little toy home?

Where next will it go, one might wish to know:

To bleach high frozen summits dark with read snow;

To the land of tall palms, to sap oil's fill;

To the paddies of waste, fear, hunger, despair;

Or the centre of culture, to strip life bare?

True

When I was a kid

we used to play,

in the sand,

and in the hay.

When I was a youth

we used to play,

all through the night,

and into the day.

And now I'm grown-up,

and I sit down to sup,

and think of the days gone by:

of days of sand and grit,

And the present—

A bloody hypocrite !

Love Is...

Love is a many splendoured thing;

It's signified by a wedding ring.

Love is what makes the world go 'round;

It's emotioned by sight and sound.

Love is the key to the Pearly Gate—

It's better than Blood, War or Hate.

Love is patient;

Love is kind.

Love is not jealous;

Love leaves Hate behind.

Love is not careless.

It does not put on airs;

It is not snobbish;

Love is when someone cares;

Love is not polish.

Love that wanders

Is not Love at all;

Love that is still

Will never fall.

Love is never rude;

It is not self-seeking.

Not love of food,

But Love of helping.

It is not prone to anger;

Nor does it brood over injuries.

It defies danger.

Love is the birds and bees.

Love does not rejoice in what is wrong,

But rejoices in the truth.

Love, expressed by a song,

Results in youth.

There is no limit to Love's forbearance,

(Love your parents);

To its trust,

(It defies lust);

Its hope,

(It does not mope);

Its power to endure,

(Its power to cure).

Love is the password to the Golden Gate.

_Love,_ how do you rate?

Love is not Hate,

As Early is not Late;

Love unlocks the Pearly Gate,

Through which love comes to without—

Let us dance and sing and shout !

The Love from God

The Love to earth

The Love of death

The Love of birth.

Love is Light

As Hate is Dark;

Inflame or extinguish

That faint, distant spark !

136284

I once knew a man—his number, one-three-six-two-eight-four,

Who lay on his bed and locked the bedroom door

When not employed at his work

As a Government bespectacled clerk.

From nine to five he worked steadily on

Without a mistake, doing nothing wrong.

Home to tea, to an indifferent wife;

Watched TV—the story of his life.

For twenty-five years he did he same

At two dollars an hour—

To shy a raise to gain.

He was no Bonaparte, no Richard Burton,

(Nor a carpet, nor a curtain !)

He was a man, like all men—of flesh and blood,

Yet he was treated like dirt, or mud.

Why ?

Give a sigh.

It does not matter...

He was embroiled in Man-mass batter.

He who follows— one-three-six-two-eight-five,

_He_ might survive.

EVOL...EVOL...EVOL...EVOL...

Man will not live by bread alone.

Nor shall water quench his thirst.

What man has, and what man wants,

He considers last and first.

All the thoughts of all the men

Of all the times everywhere

Have not succeeded—

And now are rare.

"Success of what !?" my good man asks.

"Of life," I say, "of life itself !"

What in life do you have ?

And what in life do you want ?

What you want is what you have;

Yet, what you have is what you want !

You have a house — you have a job —

You have your clothes — you're in a mob —

You have a car — you have your food —

You have some money — and you have your mood.

But few men have

My wife and home.

Tomorrow ?

"The end is nigh !"

I heard him cry:

"Take heed of what I say,

For thou hast sinned, and sinners die;

By Hell's fire you will pay !"

This world of ours is doomed for sure,

No longer shall we have peace or war.

The end is nigh; and nigh the end is;

With atom-bombs and Vietnam—

Each getting theirs and his.

We live in fear all our life,

Fear of only them—

For they have the power:

Power to us condemn.

And we, the children of all mankind,

Humble at the sight of greater mind,

Do the work of our defender:

For the service we die and render

We receive nothing fair,

For our elders do not care.

Revolt ! I say, against war and sin;

Save this world for our next of kin.

Continue in peace and save this race;

To destroy this world we are in no haste.

Give us a chance to live a life;

We only fight and die for you.

We don't make the wars and hate;

Let us show what _we_ can do !

We do not condemn those who grow old,

We are young but understand;

We condemn those who grow bold—

Those greedy for more land !

We're not scared to fight for our land;

We'll fight on water and on the sand.

But we won't fight without a cause,

Because we still believe in Santa Claus.

Our generation is growing up.

(We didn't invent the Melbourne Cup.

Nor did we make the grog you love;

And some of us still pray — to Him above).

Oh let us be, you've done enough !

It's not our fault your life's been rough.

At last we plead: "Give us a go !

We hold in our hands the fate of tomorrow."

Is it fair that we die for you ?

Revolt ! I say, before it's too late.

"Tomorrow is nigh !"

I heard him cry:

Tomorrow, where be you ?

TUG-O'-WAR

"You are wasting your time, Mr. Smith."

"Our team does not think so."

"We shall win," returned Mr. Jones.

"Your capital strength will fail !"

"Never ! It is the will of our team !"

"Gentlemen, please be passive,"

interrupted Mr. Thantos.

"Let us discuss the matter quietly;

there is much at stake.

Gentlemen, it should be realized

that neither can win;

both are wasting time and energy.

Look ! Your teams are exhausted, almost fatigued,

and the rope will eventually break

under such a strain.

If that should happen, both have lost;

never shall there be another match.

Besides, Tug-o'-War is a child's game,

played for fun, and not such stakes as are here proclaimed.

If not of yourselves,

then think of those who support you—

your teams, what do they feel about their position ?

And think of the innocent spectators, if. . .

if that rope breaks some may be injured.

Think of the energy and time both are wasting;

and the resources !

Your many-men teams could be much more constructive,

and beneficial to all,

in assisting universal production.

Give up, gentlemen.

Through your own reasoning you can see

that a compromise is necessary—

and the only peaceful solution.

Throw away your traditions, emotions and beliefs;

this matter must be dealt with intellectually,

not with force.

The arena is too small for such an explosive conflict.

Gentlemen, please, I plead on behalf of all:

your teams, your families, children,

and the powerless spectators:

don't be so egoistic.

The fate of everything rests with both of you;

Let fate rest with your co-operation.

Gentlemen: Peace !"

ASSOCIATION

Atomic

Bomb,

Contamination,

Destruction;

Explosion,

Fallout,

Genocide;

H-bomb;

I C B M;

Jews,

Kill,

Lime,

Murder !

Napalm,

Obliteration;

Peace ?

Quotidian

Radiation,

Suffocation;

Terrible

Unending

Vietnam war;

X-termination,

Youth,

Zenith.

I THINK IT'S BEAUTIFUL

Methinks it a beautiful day;

but nothing to do worthwhile.

If only to put my talents to use,

if only for a while

this day would put away its sorrow

and I would look for tomorrow,

with greatest joy,

as when I was a little boy.

The sun so high;

the bright clear sky;

the birds, the trees, the grass !

I cannot let this day pass

without fulfilling its wish.

I wish, I wish . . .

To look and start

a life of peace—

a life, never, never cease.

To be fulfilled and satisfied;

to love and love,

until I've died.

A death of peace.

Love !

Love shall never cease.

Why ?

Why does a man shun off men,

and yet make heroes of others ?

I don't know;

for we are all, all brothers.

Why does a man find fault with men

and fail to praise the good ?

I don't know;

for we have not, not understood.

Why does a man preach love and peace,

yet fail to keep his own terms ?

I don't know;

but in time, in time, man learns.

Why does a man, as he lives,

take, but never, never gives ?

I don't know;

for a man thinks himself a god,

but is only a pea, a pea in a pod.

We see a man on the street,

and we begin to think:

He's so ugly and so thin,

and doesn't he bloody stink !

In each character there's both good and bad;

but yet, it's so very, very sad

that when we look at another,

we don't realize, he too has a Mother.

We always see his bad side,

until — huh ! . . . until he's died.

And so pretend to excuse his past,

and see the good, the good at last.

Here I sit by the window,

watching another day go by;

without someone to share my thoughts,

or upon their shoulder cry.

I sit alone for ever so long:

waiting, watching, hoping;

what did I do to deserve it;

what did I do so wrong ?

Nothing of which I know:

I've never done anything bad;

yet here I am so sad, so sad, sad,

without anyone, or anywhere to go.

Is it because I'm fat or thin ?

Or have I black or yellow skin ?

Am I too tall ?

Or am I too short ?

Is it the clothes I wear ?

Aren't I a good sport ?

Or is it you just don't care

for me, me at all ?

For thousands of years

man has learned,

but not the necessity of life;

he has struggled in vain,

and fought the rain:

yet still drowns in strife.

THE END

I wander here,

I wander there,

without a worry,

without a care.

And where I go,

and slowly tread,

I see the burnt,

I see the dead.

A face I once

used to know

(and that was not so long ago)—

I now do see,

with light so clear,

a child — my son !

Oh, O' so dear.

With radiation

and germs of war

existing now

for never more;

Peace has come

at last to Earth,

to countries far,

in width and girth.

No birds to sing

all through the day;

but no more fear—

hip-hip hooray !

No longer shall

we have a home.

There is no Love,

just bloody loam.

The morrow had come;

the morrow had gone;

what now exists

is neither right nor wrong.

Man no longer

has a life

because of war

and atomic strife.

I, the one

and only man,

am doomed to die

by God's childless hand.

And so to Heaven

they did send

all the Love,

today . . . The End.

ANTHEM TO AUSTRALIA

God save Australia fair,

Long live our men of rare.

God save Our Land.

United in one band,

Together we stand;

Long may we live in Peace.

God save this Land.

Happy and glorious;

It's Our countree:

Fertile, victorious;

Girded by sea.

Devoted to toil;

Pledged to Peace;

Rich in soil.

Australia ! Never cease !

For Those Left Behind...

Death stole her away like a thief in the night,

Freeing her spirit like an eagle in flight.

Don't look for her here in the red dust of earth,

She has returned to Creation to the God of her birth.

Look for her now where the north winds blow free

And summer rains fall on strong growing trees.

Look for her where the grass grows tall,

Look for her where the starlight falls.

Look for her now in those left behind,

Seeing the never unbroken line

of love which she gave without words.

Yet in the hearts of us all her love has been heard.

© Mary Nutter 1989.
A Day in the Ward...

A day in the ward,

a patient's eye-view

of how to get bored

when you turn ghastly blue.

It's 5.45 and the dawn's early light

dispels all the shadows that covered the night.

Nursie comes in and says:

" _You awake ?_ "

Of course if you're not she'll oblige with a shake.

" _Here's a nice cup of tea, to start off your day._ "

And though you don't want it, you drink anyway.

You're blissfully drifting back to your slumber,

but you don't get away with it, they've got your number !

Your blankets are gone,

you've soap and you've water

for washing yourself in places you oughter.

Hurry it up,

(and remember your ears),

there's lots to be done before breakfast appears !

Your temperature's taken,

you're pilled and you're panned;

your bed has been made,

then breakfast's at hand !

And after you've eaten there's nothing to do,

so maybe you'll snooze for a minute or two...

But no !

You've a date with the X-ray machine,

for the prettiest pictures you've ever seen !

A trip on the trolley back to the ward,

your morning-tea's here, no time to be bored.

Between now and lunch there's not much to do,

maybe a swab, or specimen or two.

Or someone from Haemo will suddenly come,

for a bit of your blood from your arm or your thumb.

After your lunch it's time for a sleep—

if you want to stay healthy just don't make a peep !

Then Nursie wakes you for your back to be done;

and before you can blink the afternoon's gone.

You're eating again, and it's well on the way

to the hour you've waited for all through the day.

But it seems just a flash when your visitors' here,

before the bell tells them to _Get out of here !_

The day's almost over;

here's Nursie, and then,

you're temp'd and you're panned,

and you're pilled once again.

There's just one thing more:

please don't rant or wail

if your darn lot is a jab in the tail !

You're all bedded down, and sleep's on its way;

you think of the people you've seen through the day;

the comings and goings, the sadness and laughter:

you hope for each one there'll be good health here-after.

And you have time to think, of the bills you will pay,

because of your sickness—day after day...

Anonymous

Images of public servitude

Is professionalism mentioned in the Hawke Review ?

We all know just how hard public servants work for a miserable salary, and of their admirable aptitude for detail and efficiency; and even how more pressed they are now, as thousands of vacancies in Australia's workforce remain unfilled. That being the case, and pre-empting the Hawke Review, I volunteered my expertise, experience and diligence to the ACT Government, to help push along meaningful policies and practices.....

Thus it's difficult to fathom, although true, that during my 3-month Public Servitude contract—now coming to a close, thank God !—I had managed to be effectively productive...err...do something that resembled work, for a total of 14 hours and 42 minutes. Ah, there _is_ an art to appearances !

Much of the time I sat in "my" corner of a public servitude cubicle—shared with 3 others—with literally nothing to do except think of ways to _look_ busy, sensing how wary Winston Smith may have felt about random surveillance by Big Sibling. Nevertheless, I decided to put finger to keyboard in the throes of termination to depict my last 3 months of absolute boredom and alienation, and of the mechanics of ineptitude in this small Department of Misery.

Employed as a Policy Officer because of my extensive postgraduate expertise in the social sciences, I spent the entire first week reading various legislations in all their glorious legalese. Having accomplished that task in 2 days, in my second week I was designated the prime job of extracting the best legislation of several pertaining to two key words. And if I were to get bored for the remaining 4 days, I could attempt to fathom the random and cluttered system of electronic filing on a computer that still operated with Windows 2000.

These limiting activities were interspersed with frequent trips to the tearoom, invariably followed by even more frequent trips to the bathroom, taking the longest possible route, of course, and the smallest steps I could muster. Other forms of procrastination and mental occupancy included frequent cigarette breaks, long periods of newspaper reading ( _The Canberra Times_ , of course, to retain my sanity in the toilet), "dashing" out to the car for something I had "forgotten", checking out the only chick worth looking at in the Dept. if Misery, or strolling about, ostensibly with files in hand, stopping more often than a garbage truck to chat (endlessly, I would hope) with other Public Servants who shared my bored status but not the guilt. These could hardly be called colleagues, and even less co-"workers", as few did anything substantial for much of their time within this glassed-in prison of platitudes and political correctness. Besides, during my first week or so there had been no introductions, no orientation program, no plan to familiarize me with colleagues or the "workings" of this Dept. of Misery.

Feeling extremely guilty about my lack of productivity and mindful focus, I constantly wandered about, always dressed neatly, papers in hand, name tag prominent, the epitome of a Public Servant. In one day I walked so much my legs ached, but it was worth it to alleviate not only the total boredom but also the guilt. On these journeys I would commonly espy a fellow or five surfing the net or playing netgames, another asleep in his chair, another in private phone conversations for an hour, a few playing beach-ball in their cubicle, or others walking about, averting eye contact, as I did, in their attempt to allay signs of similar boredom, or perhaps feigned guilt.

In the third week my immediate boss went off to a workshop; it would have been nice of him to let me know this, and even nicer to have designated me some work to do. But he was gone, so what else could I do except spend the whole week _productively_ —writing an academic paper about Taiwan universities and freshlings—in no way related to my job description.

By the fourth week Christmas had come—literally thank God ! With the flexi time I had accumulated I was able to have 14 complete days of real Life, fully funded by gracious taxpayers.

Returning to "work" I began counting the days, the hours, the minutes to the next weekend, the next holiday. I overheard it said that January was a slow month and I could not help but think that if things went any slower they would stop. After 23 days the long-awaited long weekend arrived; 3 days of bliss, followed by a staggering subsequent 6 weeks to Easter. Would I endure?

One colleague suggested I ask my boss for some work; was she mad ? "Don't be silly", I said, "I may be bored, but I'm not stupid ! He might actually give me something to do. Besides, it's not in my job description to _ask_ for work."

Fortunately a few things happened to break this monolithic monotony. The first was letting me out on a day trip, chaperoned of course, to police elements of the wayward public whom I was meant to serve. I was like a dog rearing at his leash at this new lease of freedom; let loose among the public to create chaos at a higher level.

The second break with monotony came with a "seminar" by Number Two OIC (Old Incompetent Crony), and her obese sidekick—(obesity was a common hallmark of Public Servitude). I had heard it said that Number Two & Co. both had Degrees, possibly from UNI (the University of No Ideas)—one of those former CAEs that Dawkins long ago thought worthy of elevating merely in order to raise a political presence amongst the working-class.

I was never sure who was actually making the seminar presentation, so unstructured it was and unruly the participants; nor what its purpose could be until the final moments. It seemed that Number Two had run out of innovative ideas and was now brain picking the underlings. So finally here was my opportunity to initiate and develop _real_ policy ! But what this really amounted to was writing several points on the board and, without further discussion, "voting" as to which were the "best". Needless to say my idea got a _small_ tick, while the idea that Number Two seemed to like got quite a _large_ tick. If this was a seminar presented by a freshling at a real university—which is my background—it would not have passed.

In a flash it became obvious that our feared and nepotic managers at all levels had not an ounce of inspiration amongst them, not a nano-moment of ever thinking outside the box, and were clearly bogged down in a discourse of policing and punishment vis-à-vis constructive, proactive encouragement and well-balanced programs. Thus, if it had not been obvious before, it was now: that my talents, expertise, 20 years experience and enthusiasm—fully funded by those gracious taxpayers—were fully wasted.

Take for example my encounter with a Committee's argument to allow a Genetically Modified product into Australia, on the basis that it would _never_ (I emphasize never) escape its rigid confines; but _if_ it did (which, of courses it could _never_ do), then there was a contingency plan in place. I couldn't help but wonder—and argue—that if it would "never" contaminate other things, then why would one want a contingency plan in case it did escape its quarantine ? The GM argument at the highest level was wrought with inconsistencies, tautology, rhetoric, money, power and rubber stamping. I was told, in no uncertain terms, despite my grave misgivings, to rubber stamp the proposal. So why, then, was I even employed in this Dept. of Misery ?

Having been stamped with what seemed eternal misery, the third and most joyous break to my monotony came as an announcement that my 3-month contract would _not_ be renewed. What joy, what bliss ! I would no longer have to tolerate days so mindless that suicide by firearm had frequently raised its welcome spectre. To be on the dole and a househusband would be more productive and fulfilling. But my joy was doubled when, on that same day, I was offered another job, more to my elk I would hope, and hopefully not in another Dept. of Ineptitude.

So, while the Hawke Review outlines plans to rid the ACT Public Service of Departments of Misery and Ineptitude, what it really means is that it will simply shift and obfuscate cultures of obstructionism and boredom, ineptitude and insipidness to cubicle corners where servants do not serve nor deserve to be.

Dr. Winston Smith Jnr. (pseudonym)

LAND RIGHTS FOR GAY WHALES:

Political Correctness, or Ideology Under the Mat ?

by

Dr. Paul W. Mathews

and

Ms. Shriyani Maine.*

ABSTRACT

The co-incidence of a strong surge of ethnic claims and consequent debates about ethnicity and race with the emergence of a notion of political correctness (PC) in the academic and middle-classes have served to not only distort or censor knowledge but to also reinforce the _assumed_ hegemonic position of the middle-class. Day-to-day contact with University students and working-class people shows that PC cannot be taken seriously, except insofar as it serves to foster resentment and reinforce racist attitudes, if only in silence, among Westerners. PC neglects to take account of the large majority of working-class or uneducated people (of whom the Federal Parliamentary Member for Oxley is a key example...you know, please explain...) who, as holders of particular racist views, daily perpetuate politically incorrect behaviour because they are largely immune to the "thought police" of the middle and academic classes. The ability of these latter classes to articulate their racist views necessitates PC as a mechanism of control, while among the working-class PC is irrelevant.

Grass-roots racism is evidenced in a number of instances dealing with Australian aborigines and Western colonialism.

* * *

Several years ago, during the heyday of political correctness (PC), I was called upon to give a lecture [summarized herein] on race/ethnicity to a group of undergraduate students. Aware of PC, yet also aware of my need to say something in response to a number of recent "politically correct" events, I presented a lecture that incorporated a number of issues, themes and sources, with a threefold aim: firstly, to discuss racism in a general way; secondly, to pose the question of why the discourse of racism was so often rhetorical at best and _emotional_ and hateful at worse. And thirdly, I wanted to tie this discourse to what was emerging as a discourse of PC itself. To do this I presented as examples other, often contentious, issues such as euthanasia, child abuse, HIV/AIDS, land rights, gay rights, feminist issues, and multi-culturalism, of which racism was a part. What they all had in common was "politically correct discourse"—all these issues demanded a particular approach in dealing with them or points arising from them. This approach we now call political correctness (PC), which is the politically correct way of saying that each of these subject areas and the way in which we must deal with them consist of a hegemonic discourse. That lecture gave initial voice to a pressing need to speak out, and formed the basis of this paper in which I explore a common thread weaving through a variety of socio-political issues and fuelled by a number of events.

Euthanasia had been commonly highlighted in the media and it was clear that pro- and anti- life positions were rhetorical and not to be reconciled. Often linked to abortion, these issues more than hinted that pro-abortionists and pro-euthanasianists were immoral for taking life so lightly and it was therefore immoral (ie. politically incorrect) to even _talk_ about extinguishing life.

With HIV/AIDS it was mandatory to be sympathetic, even to homosexual victims, and especially since the virus was no longer (third)gender specific. Child (sexual) abuse was an even more strongly poignant issue: the child and his/her mother demanded sympathy, the "perpetrator" the opposite—so much so that "lynch mobs" would picket court cases involving child abuse. Nobody could talk about child abuse otherwise; absolutely no margin was to be given to "perpetrators".

A comment I once made to the effect that I personally refuse to give money to hunger or disaster appeals for Third World countries such as Rwanda, brought furore from students and official complaints. It necessitated my clear explication that such disasters are usually politically caused, and that aid-giving only serves to avoid _real_ and _political_ solutions, while appeasing the conscience of donors in the West.

Australian aboriginal land claims (the Mabo debate) quickly became conflated with issues of racism, extending to Asian immigrants to Australia, (unfortunately fuelled by protracted litigation by a large number of illegal aliens, ie. boatpeople from Vietnam, and Chinese refugees particularly from the Tiananmen affair). It had all the makings of another much-maligned Blainey episode.[1] In these rather large and conflated issues the discourse was less than hegemonic, but sufficiently so to force mainly middle and upper class people to be pro-Mabo, sympathetic, or at least remain silent. If there was a counter-view then people did not want to hear it, for in doing so the speaker and listener would be readily labeled racist. While this is a point to which I shall return, I suspect that such a blinkered response to the racial discourse is because most people are _essentially_ racist. They are racist because their own sense of national and cultural identity demands it.

The blinkered nature of this racial discourse is evident in two incidents I witnessed:

The Mabo decision of 1992 gave title to the inhabitants of clearly defined islands with no white settlement; the case rested on permanent settlement of land and its use by a particular island population. In other words, land title was given to a particular group of aborigines on a particular island because they could readily prove that they had lived there and had used the land for generations.

Since then other aboriginal groups have laid claim to various parts of Australia. They claim that in 1788 when whites "invaded" Australia, the land was not vacant— _terra nullius_ —and therefore the British had no right to assume white ownership of the land. Or, if aboriginal land ownership or occupancy was recognized by the British, they had the god-given right and duty to take responsibility for the land since aborigines were at such a "primitive" stage of development that they were incapable of being responsible for it. Thus begins two long sagas:

Firstly, the issue of land rights, coming to a head in the Mabo decision; and secondly, the general ethnocentric view of aborigines being primitive, uncouth, irresponsible, indolent and intellectually or culturally inferior—characteristics which many white people still hold today and which are used to legitimate particular attitudes and actions toward aborigines.

We are clearly witnessing a revival of this view in a radical form among conservative political forces in the mid-1990s. And it is ironic that this eruption of racism is a backlash to the Australian Labor Party's attempts to address certain issues among disadvantaged groups, without taking account of or addressing problems among its own working-class constituency—who are now finding their sentiments voiced by generally uninformed and uncouth political opportunists, ironically, of the Right.

Such a way of perceiving and dealing with aborigines was generally acceptable or tolerable until the 1970s. Until then, such views held sway—they constituted part of the dominant discourse; it was not overly impolite to refer to aborigines as _abos_ or _boongs_ or to make jokes about them. Since the 1970s this discourse has changed, partly as a result of the growing political power of aborigines, partly because of the growth of what is called the "guilt industry", often linked to what has been called the "aboriginal industry" which comprises lefties, greenies, the Uniting Church, anthropologists and activists [ _News Weekly_ , May 22, 1993: 4], and finding avenues of articulation among the Labor Governments of the 1980s.

This guilt campaign claims white civilization is to blame for the plight of the modern aborigine; but it goes beyond calls for due recognition of the historical role in the destruction of traditional aboriginal society that was played by settler violence, disease and racial prejudice. The real objective is a political one: to demand increased power for the vested interests of the aboriginal lobby.

This notion of white guilt is examined in a book by Dr. Ron Brunton [1993]. He argues that the politically fashionable concepts of "institutionalized racism" and white guilt are in fact holding back real solutions to aboriginal problems, preventing "proper" examination of aboriginal problems. However, Brunton's argument is based on humanistic values that political and ideological controversialists usually find intolerable and insupportable.

Herein lies PC: Brunton was construed as not only racist, but also as attacking political correctness. There ensued a most vitriolic and personal attack on Dr. Brunton at a Melbourne anthropological conference where he presented some of his ideas. Given that this occurred at an academic conference it is curious that such scathing attacks were conducted in an intellectual vacuum where personal invective and appeals to often untenable propositions represented attempts to impose moral sanctions on Brunton. Gone were the tame, polite questions of learned enquiry; gone were rational argument; and gone was the pursuit of knowledge if not truth. The notion that Brunton may be attempting to deal with a complex issue was perceived to be heretical because it fell outside the simple and rigid categories of the agenda established by proponents of the "correct" discourse. For such reasons Brunton was accused of perverting truth and promoting division and evil because his tentative probing of a difficult or contentious subject outraged those who insisted on reducing complex issues to simplicities. Such politically correct zeal cannot tolerate shadings or gradations; nor is it capable of rising above simple, though often highly emotional, assertions. In short, simple and direct _ad hominem_ slurs and accusations were made to stand for argument, discussion, demonstration or deduction.

On another occasion I had cause to point out to a colleague that it was in fact he, my colleague, who had once raised (although in whispers) his own incapacity to express his benign and platonic feelings towards children—feelings which could readily be construed by PC'ers as vicarious child abuse. In other words, people had feelings, opinions and rational arguments, but there was a pervasive fear in challenging hegemonic discourses.

These and other occasions illustrate the demand for compliance, and the reactions when it is not forthcoming, and show the fundamental inflexibility and power of those who are determined to discredit anyone who has anything to say contrary to the "correct" line.

However, that people have differing views, whatever their basis, is most evident among the working class of Australia.[2] Some time ago my brother (from Kalgoorlie, a rough, gold mining town) and I discussed Mabo. He readily expressed his denigrating views, replete with expletives, about aborigines and their land claims. Asked why he did not make his views public (ie. in the media, etc), he replied because he was not educated. In turn he suggested that I, educated and residing in the centre of power (Canberra), should speak out. But that was the heart of the problem: it was _because_ I was educated that I could _not_ speak freely.

This need for the middle-class or the educated to be politically correct, and therefore to be constrained, was one of the points I wished to make in my lecture on racism; and ironically this need became even more evident _in the reaction to that lecture_. I will briefly summarize here that lecture, before moving on to colonialism which is so readily linked to racism.

The title of my lecture was _Land Rights for Gay Whales_....with AIDS—a title that did not auger well with PC'ers, and brought fits of laughter from those either insensitive or politically naivé. I began by setting up the pre-PC discourse on aborigines, with an example of the so-called aborigine industry, stating that from 1966 to 1986 there has been a 3-fold increase in the number of aborigines, partly because of a change in the definition of an aborigine or Torres Straight Islander (TSI), which allowed almost anyone to be counted as an aborigine or TSI.[3] I pointed out that: only 33% of aborigines live in rural areas; only 1.5% of the Australian population is aboriginal; and that since 1975 $25,000 million has been spent on aboriginal welfare, or each year $5,000 is spent on each person who identifies as aboriginal. This amount is in addition to social security, health and education benefits provided to all Australians, and does not allow for the advantage of easier entry into tertiary institutions, the public service, art careers, etc, which self-identifying aborigines enjoy over other Australians seeking employment and education. Who would not want to be included in such a bonanza ? [MacMahon, 1993: 10].

In one case a man presented himself as a 1/16th aborigine of the Brisbane Wanka tribe. He was accepted as aboriginal and granted an aboriginal housing loan at 1/3rd the going rate. He admitted that the loan was the sole purpose of his self identification.

To say all of this before the 1970s was not considered racist. But now it is. Before 1970 we could ask: do the needs of this tiny group justify such spending and the legal/political problems that, some would say, aborigines have created ? Since the 1970s we can not ask even this question without incurring labels of racism, or feelings of white guilt.

In the past we could cite the above figures, facts and issues to indicate, rationally, objectively, that money spent on aborigines has largely been ineffectual or even "wasted" (in PC terms: inappropriately diverted or inefficiently managed). In being objective, we could claim to be non-racist; we could claim to be merely assessing and dealing efficiently with the situation. However, it is now politically incorrect to even present such facts and figures, for doing so implies that a minority group, a whole culture, has a price that can be scaled relative to other minority groups or the dominant population. _That_ , therefore, is racism.

But what this counter-labeling by pro-aborigine, white-guilt industry groups does is prevent _even consideration_ of various factors, concerns, views and finances.

Now, having said all of the above in my lecture, I was then obliged to tell my student audience that I could not say all of the above, and therefore they did not hear any of it. But in the event that I did say what I did not say, and they did hear what they did not hear, I also found it necessary to say—or not say—this: Do not confuse what I say about aborigines or racism with what I think or believe about them. That is, just because it may appear that I am pushing an anti-Mabo line, does not mean that I am necessarily anti-aborigine or that I am racist (in a populist sense). I had to say this for two reasons: firstly, students often seem to think that what a lecturer says is what he/she _advocates_. The second reason, which holds even in this paper, is: because of the white guilt industry and the demand to be politically correct, I had to state very clearly my position.

Having got thus far in my lecture without being spat on, I continued with the following question: What does this mean in terms of political correctness ?

PC is perhaps best summarized by a few examples. I quote one writer:

"A second generation Australian, I love my country passionately....Yet it now seems that I and millions of other non-Aboriginal Australians like me barely count. We are certainly not being asked to contribute to the 'Mabo debate' and there seems almost a conspiracy of silence regarding this aspect of the whole sorry mess.... If we do try to raise it we are harshly and unfairly silenced with charges of 'racism'" [McMahon, 1993: 10].

It is interesting to note two points in this quote.

First, the Mabo debate. The point of this writer's objection, and of political correctness, is that there is no debate; only one side of an issue can be presented—in this case the Mabo/aboriginal side. What sort of debate is that ?

One academic put it this way: If you engage in public controversy you have to expect to be shot at. If you get down there and engage in the crossfire, you have to expect to be clobbered and people will really jump on you [News Weekly, Oct. 9, 1993: 9].

Now that would be a fair enough comment if it referred to fair and rational criticism in a two-sided debate. But PC, or hegemonic discourse, is not fair and rational criticism in the seeking of some knowledge or truth. PC is a one sided debate; it does not even allow you to be _fairly_ clobbered. PC forecloses on criticism; its immediate aim is merely to achieve censorship or compliance. If one even raises the possibility of criticism of, say, aboriginal welfare policies, one is branded a racist and automatically censored. As Blainey discovered with the multi-culturalism industry, a common tactic is to label as racist anyone who criticizes it.

With other issues, also, one may be emotionally branded as: gender-biased, as anti-environmentalist, as ageist, homophobic, or as unpatriotic, etc. To even hint that children are cute is cause for immediate concern.

This brings me to the second point of interest raised in the above quote: the rhetorical or emotional tone of the writer's objections; words like "passionate", "unfair", "harshly" are used to evoke certain emotions; and there is an appeal to the sentiments, as if to imply that only these can be appealed to because discursive discourse—rational dialogue to arrive at an agreement or understanding—is impossible. In other words, hegemonic discourse (PC) involves personalized slander and degradation—being emotionally dragged across the hot coals. PC has replaced argument and debate with personal vilification and abuse; hyperbole and counter-hyperbole have been made to stand for argument, analysis and discussion.

Geoff Blainey and Fred Hollows offer two examples. Blainey's fault was that he dared to criticize the concept of multi-culturalism and Australia's immigration program. For this he was labeled racist and mono-cultural. Hollows' unforgivable sin was that he criticized the Gay Rights Lobby and dared to suggest that AIDS was primarily a homosexual disease. For this he was labeled as homophobic and, oddly, inhumane! [4]

Similar accounts can be found for Derek Freeman who criticized Margaret Mead's now infamous study of Samoa; about Helen Garner for "breaking feminist ranks" with her book, _The First Stone_ ; and even some biologists who have questioned the acclaimed AIDS epidemic have been vilified or beaten up.

[Incidentally, an Australian medical doctor dared suggest that duodenal ulcers were caused by bacteria; he was not merely scoffed at by the medical fraternity—on the basis that the fraternity argued bacteria could not survive the hostile environment of the stomach—but also was expelled from the fraternity. He gave himself an ulcer, then took some medication to eradicate it. He received the Nobel prize for Medicine].

I am not concerned with whether these or other people are factually correct or not. What I am concerned with is the ability of one group, possibly a minority group, foreclosing consideration of certain factors, comments, criticisms and views by simply and emotionally labeling others as oppositional or as racist. What I am saying is that the right to free speech is severely limited by PC; and this hegemonic discourse, the limitation of the right to criticize, has real effects such as:

A New York court awarded damages against officials at City University for removing Dr. Jeffries from his job in the Black Studies Department. Dr. Jeffries had made a speech in which he claimed there was a conspiracy planned and programmed out of Hollywood by Jews and the mafia to bring about the destruction of black people; and that Jews had financed the African-American slave trade.

Now Dr. Jeffries might well have been a fruitcake; but that is not the point. The court found that Dr. Jeffries had been denied his constitutional right to express whatever views he wanted, however offensive they might be. He may have been an odious individual, a religious zealot, a horrible person to have as Head of the Department, and the least truthful of all witnesses, but the evidence was firmly in his favour: the University had definitely violated his right to free speech.

In a similar case a philosophy professor successfully resisted attempts to have him dismissed because of statements he had made that blacks are, on average, less intelligent than whites.

How is all this related to race and ethnicity ?

Let me sum up the question of PC and then deal with two issues that relate directly to race and ethnicity.

In a recent book titled _Illiberal Education_ , the author [D'Souza, 1991] describes political correctness as a method of censorship used by the "thought police" of the Left to enforce what is seen as the correct party line. He explains how radical groups such as Marxists, feminists and gay activists are now enforcing their view of what is ideologically sound on both students and academics. Anyone who offends by daring to question the new trinity of gender, ethnicity and class is condemned as politically unsound.

For example, the novel _Moby Dick_ has been condemned on a number of grounds:

1. there are no affirmative roles for women evident in the novel;

2. the story presents an offensive view of ethnic minorities;

3. whales are killed indiscriminately.

_Thomas the Tank Engine_ [5] has also come in for criticism by Marxists—for being elitist and sexist. They find the books and movies offensive because they present some trains as superior, and the less advantaged trains appear to accept their inferior position in the pecking order. In other words, the story is a tool by the capitalist, patriarchal class to impose its control over oppressed groups. Also, almost all characters are male and thus Feminists have also attacked Thomas because of the stereotyping of the only female train, and because Thomas pulls two female carriages around, which implies women can't operate under their own steam, they are dependent on males.[6]

So ended the second major point in my lecture: that PC not only constructed "debates", but in doing so refused admission of alternative views and did so in such an intimidating and emotional way as to effect censorship and compliance. Many in my student audience accordingly condemned me—for being racist, anti-Left, and politically incorrect—not by rationale argument, but by rhetoric and the use of emotion and intimidation. Essentially they wanted me to say what they wanted to hear—a response which only affirmed my lecture's third major point: that PC is grounded in emotion.

The issue I wanted to present in this third part of the lecture was: what is the role of emotion, usually hostility, anxiety and fear, in the construction of race relations ?

There is some truth in Giddens' [1989] notation that racism is often a form of displacement or scapegoating; and that economic or political conditions often foster racism. But few writers deal with the more emotional or personalistic aspect of racism, such that racial arrangements are justified by the oppressor by appeal to a theory about the believed genetic, biological or other inferiority of the oppressed group.

In other words, while there may be various and problematic causes for racism, racist attitudes and ultimately behaviour are often legitimated by appealing to sentiments or emotions: fear of aborigines, anxiety about Jews controlling the economy, or the unfairness of Indians gaining political power in Fiji. If one wishes to present a particular view and not have it questioned, then using or appealing to emotions is ideal—for how do you engage in a rational debate with a mad man ?

Recall a quote cited earlier in which I noted the rhetorical or emotional tone of the writer's objections; words like "passionate", "unfair", "harshly" were used to evoke certain emotions and appeals to the sentiments, as if to imply that only emotions can be appealed to because discursive discourse is impossible.

But why emotion, and not reason ? Because competing values become institutionalized in social relationships. The groups with the greatest control of resources most relevant to a particular time, place and circumstance impose their values, expectations, needs and interests upon the society as a whole. In a complex division of labour, class and status divisions are important. Separate functions and unequal resources create barriers between sections or groups within a society. And each group will pursue its own interests according to its own values. Ethnic minorities are such groupings; often they behave differently and have different values to the dominant group—or at least appear to be different. Commonly it is held that they do not fit into the dominant social structure.

Prejudice, or pre-judging, is a kind of shorthand for experience—or more accurately, lack of experience. The classifications we use to "type" people, events and ideas help us sort our new experiences or perceptions and to typify them in a way that makes them meaningful _to us_. We fit them into _our_ view of the world. Because our experience of other cultures and races is often limited, many of our classifications or labels come to us second-hand, often through socialization in the family, school and work. These labels tend to be general, or stereotypes, based on usually only a few assumed salient characteristics.

Just as in early childhood socialization we learn to perceive ourselves as others see us and thereby develop a personal identity, so too is identity constructed or reconstructed in confronting other ethnic groups or different ideas. In other words, the stranger who brings a new cultural life both heightens our sense of identity and threatens it. If they happen to be in a minority, or are primitive, or non-aggressive, or dis-united, they can be destroyed, ignored or ridiculed. By these three means we can maintain our own identity intact, our sense of self as superior: we do not have to examine ourselves, our values, our behaviour; our identity is not questioned; and therefore any perceived threat to our identity is disengaged. If we feel threatened in any way the last thing we want to do is examine our own values, motives, feelings or behaviour. The first thing we want to do is destroy or neutralize that threat. Emotion, hostility, ridicule, irrationally asserting superiority, is often effective in achieving this goal.

But it also has the effect of disengaging us from possible alternatives. This takes me to my second point:

While in the past, dominant, white, Anglo-Saxon society has used hegemonic discourse to oppress—and to legitimate oppression of—minority groups, some minority groups such as aborigines, feminists and homosexuals might now be seen as having reversed that position; they now have sufficient political and moral power to not only present their interests but also define the agenda in which those interests will be discussed and dealt with. They also use the same tactic of establishing a hegemonic or exclusive discourse, or PC; you can not talk about Mabo, homosexuality, AIDS, child abuse or feminist issues except in terms dictated by the discourses established by such groups.

They also use emotion: hostility and personal vilification if one dares raise questions outside the agenda; and rhetorical, emotional pleading, appealing to disgust, sympathy or indignation. In part this is because, ironically, it was the Left which, in advocating equality and democracy, abolished privilege. Since the Left itself could no longer claim privilege for itself, it left few grounds on which works of literature, public announcements, personal opinions and desires, or conference presentations etc could be prosecuted in an attempt to prevent their dissemination. For that reason, those who, rightly or wrongly, felt aggrieved by what a book, a paper or public announcement said, have no access to any tribunal or authority to represent their grievances, where they might seek injunctions of one form or another. Their only recourse is to emotion-charged controversy of the kind represented in my examples previously cited or more spectacularly by the scandal over Demidenko's/Darville's book, _The Hand That Signed The Paper_. [See http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/08/the-return-of-helen-demidenko-on-culture-war-and-the-value-of-truth ]

The use of such emotional appeal is epitomized by Derrin Hinch[7] and his crusade against so-called child molesters. AIDS victims is another case in point. Land rights is yet another. During the Mabo debate there was a newspaper front-page story and picture regarding Mabo and the Government's decision. The picture showed two aboriginal men in tears, downcast, evoking various sympathetic emotions. In the story, words like "emotion" itself, and "sad" were used. Poor buggers—so this picture said. After that little exposé, if you don't at least feel sorry for aborigines then you are certainly racist.

[Having said all that in my lecture, I felt compelled to add a note about the role of sociologists. I advised my students not to leave the lecture thinking that I or sociologists generally are heartless. Personally any one of us may be very sympathetic, and even active in a cause. But as scientists we need to look at all factors objectively. I suggested they try being objective by considering the Bosnia situation, to consider the complexity of the ethnic, religious and national groups involved; how each are using various techniques to gain sympathy which either reinforce oppression (eg. Bosnians are only Muslims) or attempt to gain support for a minority group—such as showing innocent women and children dying etc. I suggested that they don't consider the role or bias of the media, but to consider how each party in this conflict is attempting to set the terms by which the conflict is to be viewed].

While the various means of PC and of setting agendas have been employed in the past to perpetrate racism and justify oppression, counter-use by the Left merely relays the problem down the temporal track and is overall counter-effective; as very much a middle-class guilt trip or evasion of responsibility, PC merely attempts to achieve censorship or compliance and is out of touch with the people written about and the day-to-day interactions between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged groups or classes. In short, the working class has little time for PC. This is most evident in the previously cited example of my Kalgoorlie brother denigrating aborigines, and by a particular Letter by a Mr. Michael Lines appearing in _The Australian_ (25/5/94, p. 12; reproduced in full in the Appendix), which Shriyani Maine critiques in the following:

Mr. Lines' letter was in response to a Letter by Indu Abeysekara (of 17/5/94), who in turn was responding to a short article in the same paper (9/5/94) by Barry Cohen.

In his article, Cohen uses comments by former Australian Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, to launch into a stinging attack on Africa. His ire stems from the disclosure by Whitlam that for Sydney to gain support for its Olympic–2000 bid it had first to convince the African members of the International Olympic Committee that Australia's treatment of Aboriginals had improved. Whitlam argued that "two decades previously (the Whitlam Government) expunged the vestiges of White Australia...passed the Racial Discrimination Act and....(made) special laws for the people of the Aboriginal race...." For Cohen this revelation was an affront to the ideal of Australia as a civilized nation, an ideal that Cohen argues is unblemished when compared with Africa's record on human rights:

"I was breathless at the suggestion that Australia should have to pass muster with African delegates about how we treat our fellow human beings....(few) African nations can hold a candle to Australia's record on political rights and civil liberties....we can start by telling African nations the truth as we see it rather than remaining mute for fear of being branded imperialist, racist or whatever epithet the critics of Western liberal democracies hurl at them to divert attention from their own monstrous behaviour."

While Cohen's dismissal of Africa's concern over Australia's human rights record—by reminding Africa of their own abuses—does not make Australia's abuses any less significant, what Cohen does is reflect the often ambivalent attitudes of many Australian (working class) people.

In response, Abeysekera picks up on Cohen's comments about recent events in Africa, ie. the "monstrous" behaviour in Rwanda, and asserts that "what Africa is today is the direct result of the brutality of colonial occupation. The likes of Barry Cohen expect Africans 'to pick themselves up, dust themselves off and say "thank you" and carry on.'" Abeysekera makes a clear association between colonial exploitation and current social instability and poverty—which applies as much to Australian Aborigines as to Africa. It is to this point and its underlying fostering of guilt that Mr. Lines takes up the cudgel:

"There comes a time in every man's ( _sic_ ) life when he must accept responsibility for his own actions....While colonialism might not have been the best thing that could have happened to Africans, it certainly was not the worst.... And even though it is not fashionable to mention it, or even suggest it, colonialism can also do a lot of good...."

Mr. Lines' comments encapsulate such a variety of pertinent issues that they warrant a lengthy response, as follows:

Mr. Lines discussed many issues extolling the positive aspects of colonization. Comparing natural disasters with colonization, he suggests that colonization was not a major disaster in Africa. He proposes that other war torn countries like Japan and Germany had rebuilt their countries to prosperity within 40 years "with no natural resources", while Israel had created an "orderly society from nothing" in spite of the hostilities shown by "500 million" oil rich angry Arabs. Citing the fear of the people of Hong Kong for impending repatriation, he considers colonization as a force which could do a lot of good. He further suggests that it is adults and not colonialism that "hack a neighbour's child to pieces", and states that murder, corruption, greed, tribalism all predated colonization in Africa by millions of years. He argues that it is the existence of a colonial government that has kept the Zulus and the ANC apart, giving Africa stability.

He embellishes the importance of understanding that the "white man's gift to this planet" was science and technology which no African would have developed if not for the arrival of the Europeans in Africa. He assumes that anything that anyone needs to know is accessible if the person is willing to learn, albeit in another language. For those who are ambitious, he claims there is the possibility, among other academic feats, of learning how to walk on the moon.

Lines then proceeds to state his position as a hard working citizen who finds difficulty in feeling compassion towards the people or responsible for events occurring in far off Africa which have their origins predating his birth. Thus he refuses to give even the smallest monetary assistance towards the welfare of the African people.

Mr. Lines writes from within a framework of European (assumed) superiority rather than with substantiated fact. He avoids a realistic balance between the positive and negative aspects of several ambiguous issues, in order to misguide and imbue the reader with feelings of racial dominance if the reader is "White European", or a sense of inferiority if non-European. In order to elevate the Europeans' racial worth and demean that of others, Lines has exaggerated verifiable facts and has presented a Eurocentric, materialistic value system. There are four main points in particular which Lines misrepresents:

1. He presents inaccurate and wildly exaggerated misinformation, which could have been easily verified by material in most libraries—as Lines himself suggests !

2. Colonialism has not benefited the indigenous African people but has degraded their national dignity.

3. Lines assumes the natural superiority of materialism and ignores all elements of human dignity.

4. White man's gift to the earth, ie. science and technology, has also produced disastrous effects unsurpassed in the previous history of the planet.

I will deal with each of these points in turn.

Mr. Lines' Letter contained obvious inaccuracies and exaggerations of documented facts that are easily verifiable. For example, after World War 2 the Japanese and the Germans did not rebuild their countries from rubble into extremely prosperous countries without natural resources or outside help. Firstly, the German economy was 11% stronger at the end of the war than it had been in 1936. The damage due to the war had the effect of putting it back perhaps 10 years [Borchhardt, 1991]. Accounting for the effects of financial aid from the Allies and the Marshall Plan, West Germany received around DM5 billion in 1950 values [Dulles, 1993]. The effect of such financial input is apparent when comparing the difference in economic status between the free West and communist controlled East German peoples who are ethnically the same.

The Japanese likewise did not have to rely on their own resources to rebuild their economy which was not as severely affected as is generally proclaimed. Damage was mainly via destruction of its shipping, while that of its economy amounted to perhaps 25% of gross product [Nakamura, 1981]. The subsequent deployment of the US military on Japanese soil during the Korean war effectively injected hundreds of millions of dollars into the Japanese economy. More importantly, it removed the need for Japan to maintain a standing army or engage in substantial defence spending. This would equate to a very large sum of money which was therefore released into rebuilding the economy [Nakamura, 1984].

Contrary to Mr. Lines' claim, the Israelis too did not build a prosperous country from a few acres of desert, nor unaided repel 500 million Arabs trying to drive them into the sea. In practice, Israel has probably received more US aid per capita than any other nation on earth, amounting to a total of about $65 billion from 1947 to 1985, half of which was advanced weaponry it used to pursue actively expansionist policies and annex even more land from the Arabs [El-Khawas, 1984]. The only Arab nations Israel ever fought directly were Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, (population of 49 million in 1976) with help from Libya, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, (population of 20 million in 1976), a total far less than 500 million [Tressider, 1976].

As for the "thriving" position of Hong Kong, its affluence resulted from the opium war of the last century. Stung by the refusal of the Chinese to trade with the British who the Chinese considered barbarians, the British engineered the annexation of Hong Kong using superior military and industrial might. They used Hong Kong as a base from which they could sell opium to the Chinese at large profits [Chung, 1986]. This small colony's growth was thus based on the sale of items of highly dubious moral value. By praising the performance of Hong Kong can it be that Mr. Lines is advocating drug trafficking as a road to prosperity ?

Rather than relish colonialism as Mr. Lines seems to imply, it is possible that the people of Hong Kong fear the effects of communism, or the disarray caused by its demise in China. Perhaps the system of government operating in Hong Kong can be compared as similar to the current status of Australia as a colony of Britain. Then, one must wonder why even within such a free environment a sizeable proportion of Australians support the severance of the "yolk of colonial oppression" (as Mr. Lines puts it) in favour of a republic. It seems in the rush to embrace the glories of the "white European race", Mr. Lines has forgotten Australia's history as a penal colony of Britain and the pain and indignities that were inflicted on his own fellow white Australian ancestors. Thus, it is apparent that the Letter contains inaccurate, exaggerated, and biased misinformation to subvert the reader.

The most contentious element of the Letter is that it suggests colonization as a beneficial means of future development. By stating that Africans have benefited from colonization, Mr. Lines denies the African people the dignity of freedom to live as they please, that any Western society would demand, and in doing so creates a hypocritical and contradictory basis for an argument. The conflicts between the African tribes are explicated by Lines using a discourse aimed at insulting those tribes. The statement, "Zulus were hacking their way through other tribes before Whites colonized and it is only colonizing governments who have kept Zulus and ANC apart" has many inherent contentious factors which relay racial bias and inaccuracy. The intelligent reader will notice that Mr. Lines conveniently forgets the violence which ravaged Northern Ireland for decades, which was also divided under colonial rule.

Since Mr. Lines seems unaware of the supposed benefits (as he suggests) of Western civilization that were offered to the African people by its colonizers, perhaps a reminder of the white colonizers' treatment of the natives might be appropriate. The misery caused by white slave traders in human bondage can be surmised from the fact that, from 1666 to 1766 the number of slaves taken by the British alone totaled about 3 million; from 1776 to 1800 about 74,000 slaves per year were taken, totaling another 1.85 million African people [Morel, 1969].

To supply the great quantities of slaves required to work the fledgling industries of the West, raiding parties had to be armed ever more heavily and to penetrate deeper into the heart of the African continent. Tribal chiefs were bribed to fight other chiefs, inter-tribal feuds were exacerbated, and whole stretches of the land were systematically plundered of all available wealth by armed bands of white raiders hunting down every last negro. This no doubt included innocent women and children. The loss of life even before one slave set foot on a ship is incalculable. The loss to Africa in terms of destruction of crops, tribes, food supplies and consequent plundering of gold, diamonds and minerals (which is carried on to this day) would be immense [Morel, 1969; Robinson, Gallagher & Denny, 1963].

It is important to understand that such were the deliberate policies of the colonial rulers. The monarchs and aristocracy of the time fully supported and encouraged this trade, deemed "so beneficial to the nation" by Lord Dartmouth, Secretary of State for the Colonies. Queen Anne, and Kings William and George II all thought it "highly beneficial to the kingdom" and praised the clergy in their efforts to teach the heathens "the religion of peace and goodwill to all men" ( _sic_ ). Before it was nominally stopped, millions of Africans had died through battle, illness and privation, with many more horribly murdered, "mutilated, tortured, gibbeted alive and left to starve to death, burnt alive, flung into coppers of boiling sugar, [and] whipped to death" [Morel, 1969: 21-22]. This is hardly the "lot of good" that Mr. Lines professes to have occurred through colonialism. As Morel [ibid] further states:

"The hands of every European power which has had dealings with him [the British] is stained deep with the blood of the African. For any such power to approach the African problem...otherwise than with a consciousness of past sins, would be to proclaim itself hypocrite in the eyes of the world. What Britons may legitimately hope for from their rulers is that British policy, devoid of pharisaism, may be directed patiently, strenuously and unselfishly to the task of providing for the long persecuted black man ( _sic_ ) and his descendants a future of hope, promise and assured security."

The conflict between the ANC and the Zulu tribe pales into insignificance in the wake of such brutality exhibited by a so-called civilized power. Besides, anyone vaguely knowledgeable in South African affairs must be aware that the ANC was formed in 1912 to combat injustices such as apartheid perpetrated by the white colonizers [Chazan, Mortimer, Ravenhill and Rothchild, 1988]. The Zulus are a historically legitimate and independent people with their own King, Chief Buthelezi, the head of the Inkatha, which is a Zulu-only movement. Inkatha embodies the ideals of the ANC but is independent of it and competes with it for the loyalty of the Zulu people. The situation resulted in tension and violence, which erupted in 1987 [George, 1992] because of the over-arching existence of the white South African government and its policy of apartheid, which used the time-tested method of divide-and-rule [Frier, 1968]. Had this not existed the ANC would not have formed and the Zulus would not need their own freedom movement to compete with the ANC [Chazan et al, 1988]. With the formal end of apartheid, perhaps all parties in South Africa can now get on with repairing the years of damage and restore a society in which all Africans can work for the common good.

Therefore, to state that colonization was not the worst thing that could happen to any race of people must convey the level of barbarism that is condoned by Mr. Lines, who resides in a country which also has a similar history of treatment of its indigenous people by his own white predecessors. The above account shows that it was not only the Africans who hacked away other tribes or races, but also the European colonizers, which suggests, contrary to Lines' claims, that colonialism does "hack away" other "tribes" not because of some disagreement between the tribal groups but out of pure lust for power and material gain.

Mr. Lines quite understandably denies responsibility for South African events that happened 12,000 kilometres away and more than 50 years before his birth. Quite obviously no one has the right (or ability) to make him feel otherwise than the way he wants to feel. However, in a world that is increasingly interdependent, where the actions of all beings affect one another, and our children inherit the fruits of our actions as we inherit those of our forebears, such shirking of responsibility could be claimed only by the powerful who refuse to acknowledge the humanity of the less fortunate. Mr. Lines is lucky that he is able to keep his cents, while those less powerful with no money or livelihood have no choice but to mourn the loss of their rights and heritage which he so smugly claims as his own to enjoy.

Also, in spite of his obvious privileges of living in a free society, of superior education, opportunities to work hard, earn a decent living, etc, (where its indigenous people have been curtailed of their rights to live the way they want in their own land), Mr. Lines conveniently forgets democracy and human dignity as values for which countless human beings have sacrificed their lives. Surely one would expect that he would be knowledgeable enough to recognize that colonization deprives humans of their basic rights ?

There is little wonder that Mr. Lines' entire account was based on viewing civilization from a materialistic framework. It assumes material development and ownership of luxuries to be the sole yardstick of a country and its peoples' achievements, rather than their development in terms of respect for others, community sharing, morality, generosity, tolerance, etc—which are human values worth developing for the welfare of society. Even within the field of materialism, Mr. Lines' focus is on the Mercedes-Benz—which he implies can be made by anyone. Yet, it is doubtful if an average "White European" Australian could hope to make such a vehicle without support, or even afford one made elsewhere. Thus the Letter tries to convey a false sense of simplicity and scientific superiority of the white race in general.

Also, it is known that, in spite of natural resources and scientific and technological knowledge available, Australia still imports most of its advanced machinery, products and expertise from Europe and Japan. Currently, many industries look towards overseas financial support. Couldn't the local "White" Europeans manage to develop such technologies, thus saving valuable foreign currency ? It is obvious that the Letter aims to show Africans in an intellectually subordinate light and the "white European race" at the pinnacle of intelligence. This paradigm makes it doubly difficult to engage in unbiased discourse on these and any related matters.

In mentioning the economic miracle of Japan, Germany and Israel, again in materialistic terms, Lines overlooks several critical factors. Firstly, the Letter rates the relative damage to the societies embroiled in a war of a few years' duration with the psychological and economic damage wrought in 200 years or more of colonialism. The people of Germany and Japan still had the ability to live in an independent State after the war was over. Such a State was unknown to most of the colonized countries where humiliation and subjugation of their people was the norm. The destruction of indigenous culture, language, religion and family structure has done untold damage for generations to come.

Therefore, it is not surprising to see the overriding importance of material wealth coupled with the absence of human values most apparent in Mr. Lines' Letter. He views civilized societies as those which have managed to produce the most successful economies and become rich (ie. consume, or possess the ability to consume, the largest possible amount of resources) in the shortest of time by whatever means they wish.

The energy intensive science and technology that the Europeans introduced have given Africa problems with agriculture and desertification. Agricultural machines have damaged top soil, and imported technology such as irrigation, fertilizers and chemicals have all failed to achieve their expected goals in Africa [Dorword, 1991]. "It is clear that the African ecosystems began their rapid and continent-wide slide to disaster when the colonial powers took over most of the continent" [Psychas & Malaska, 1989: 105]. When the actual standards of living are assessed together with the damage to the environment, African living standards are now worse than before [Dorword, 1991]. Therefore, the statement that the Africans had little or no chance of developing science and technology for themselves without Western help rings hollow and further exhibits the arrogant Western assumption that science and technology are essential to civilization. Historical evidence shows that humans such as the Australian aborigines have lived in a fairly stable balance with their natural environment for tens of thousands of years. Now, within 200 years of the arrival of White Europeans, their culture, way of life and identify are irreparably destroyed.

Striving for survival has left Africa with a debt to the West which has reached staggering proportions. In some quarters the debt is regarded as an undeclared economic war for the decolonization of Africa [George, 1986] with the aim of keeping commodity prices down, stifling calls for a new world economic order, stalling industrialization in third world countries and limiting the effectiveness of the third world in dealing with its own problems [Onimode, 1989: 1]. Debt arises when goods bought exceed the value of goods sold. Yet when goods sold have little value and goods bought have quite a high value, no amount of juggling figures can leave Africa with anything but a massive debt. In view of such an indisputable fact (and agreeing with Mr. Lines who wants no further part in monetary aid to Africa), an alternative attitude can be suggested. Rather than condescendingly doling out aid, if true justice is to prevail the West should humbly and sincerely offer Africa compensation for the wealth plundered by the colonial powers.

Although largely ignored, Western civilization has not totally escaped the disadvantages of science and technology. Application of science and technology has led to the creation of capital intensive industries, where increases in efficiency (however that may be measured) are sought by trading labour for capital, thus tending to increase unemployment and consequent social stresses [Henderson, 1978]. Allied to this process, modern economics tends to evaluate the profits of technologically-based processes without counting the costs to the environment, represented by waste production, the removal of which becomes a cost to the public rather than to the polluter [Pearce, 1989; Henderson, 1978]. Clearly such a one-sided process cannot continue indefinitely [Mesarovich and Pestel, 1975]. Greenhouse gas generation and destruction of the ozone layer are also by now well known by-products of industrial processes [Firor, 1990]. And finally, thanks to military science, for the first time in history the whole system can be destroyed at the whim of a single person pressing a button. Clearly, science and technology as the "white man's gift to this earth" is a double edged sword—a curse threatening the survival of the entire planet and all its species.

As discussed above, Mr. Lines' Letter is regarded as biased and lacking factual substance. The tone of its content is that of elevating "white racial superiority", thus lowering the self esteem of other nationals who are of non-European origin and of other colours. Such public documents not only incite racial subordination but also invoke racial hatred from those victimized people who were once dominated by the very same illiterate attitudes, where human worth is measured by material wealth or gross generalizations. Therefore, it is hoped that the above account will redress such inaccuracies in the name of academic integrity and also to exercise the voice of truth in the absence of those needing to speak out. It is apparent that many inaccuracies and exaggerations presented in the Letter are of little validity but are designed to subvert and to present events to the writer's moral advantage. Therefore, the intelligent reader should carefully evaluate the hidden intentions of such a writer for him/herself.

Colonization, and its allied cohort, racism, in whatever form it takes, has one underlying purpose. It operates to subjugate the indigenous people who are the rightful owners of a land so that the land and its resources (human and natural) can be exploited for the benefit of another land or people. Therefore, by whatever weapon it presents itself—language, race, colour, attire, religion—the ultimate action of colonization is to deny people their rights to freedom in their own land. To condone such action to whatever degree is to agree that the freedom of humans can be sacrificed or negotiated for perhaps material wealth. I have therefore aimed to impress that the way to a harmonious existence on this planet lies not in domination of different colours, races, sexes or any other attributes by oppression, or recrimination of wrong-doers, but in the recognition of all beings' common need for happiness, and the welfare of all societies. Thus, for the survival of the human and other species, it is imperative that we recognize our common longings and share our earth's resources wisely for the welfare of one and all.

As a fellow human being who has witnessed the indignities of colonization, I cannot but help feel responsible and guilty for enjoying the spoils of colonialism in Australia while its true indigenous people are effectively disinherited from their own land. I salute those selfless beings such as Dr. Nelson Mandela, Mr. Steve Biko, Dr. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi; some of them laid down their lives since they valued the freedom and dignity of human beings above selfish concerns for personal gain. They were courageous enough to disobey unjust laws and to stand up for the rights of all humanity. Without these non-Europeans (coincidental, I hope) certainly we all would be much less human.

* * *

While Mr. Lines attracts scathing but justifiable criticism, we must not be blinded by the substance of the arguments, but rather focus on the discourse of the debate, in which two key points can be noted.

Firstly, Mr. Lines is hardly politically correct; yet his Letter, once published, becomes a public document and is accepted by a leading national newspaper. Both Mr. Lines _and the public-ation_ of his Letter suggest that views expressed therein are not as uncommon—although perhaps misinformed—as some people would like to believe.

This leads us to suggest, secondly, that political correctness is very much a middle-class if not purely academic phenomenon; and as such serves not the real interests of oppressed groups nor the interests of a nation as a whole. Attempts to stifle the expression of certain attitudes and points of view which happen to offend the more passionate advocates of the cause of women, gays, the disabled, of child-lovers, aboriginals, Africans and the colonized, and indeed every other group within society that suffers discrimination of one kind or another, serve no other purpose than to stifle liberal humanism. The irony of this PC totalitarianism is that it comes from the Left, which once promised the disadvantaged and the oppressed a voice, but is now being used to tell them what they ought to say, think and feel.

In so doing, PC is a policing action to maintain an ideological conformity amongst the middle-class. In other words, PC is a means of social control of also the middle-class, which ultimately has implications for the non-articulation of issues pertinent to other oppressed groups. And like many discourses, PC is underpinned by certain ideological notions. We suggest that political correctness about a number of issues—but in particular about racism, colonialism and Australian aborigines—serves to present an image of a moral class that, while acknowledging certain issues, shows its "commitment" to the "solution" of those issues by means of coercion, intimidation, emotion and rhetoric, with some band-aid assistance or grand State-sponsored scheme, all of which serve to employ and reinforce the moral stance of that middle-class.

While there is nothing wrong (ie. politically incorrect) per se about crusading, it can be and has been inquisitional, blinded by its purpose and emotion; blinded to such an extent that it has overlooked its real effects. In such a crusade the middle-class takes a moral high ground, suggesting that those who are not of this elk are of no consequence other than as victims or as perpetrators (ie. the working class) of clearly immoral acts and who thereby confirm moral beliefs. Thus the issue is not one of PC, but one of acknowledging that many people not of the moral high ground believe and act as Mr. Lines does. If PC'ers were genuine in their concerns then their strategy would not be rhetorical debates and bureaucratic intimidation, but education—which inherently involves an open search for truth and knowledge, even if this means examining differing viewpoints.

Our criticisms of Mr. Lines' views as expressed in his Letter do not arise from vindictiveness or a notion of PC, but from a need to educate within a realistic and honest discourse; the fault with PC is not just that it intimidates and censors, but that it obfuscates knowledge, diverting attention from real issues to trendyisms. While PC goes down well in University bars and Balmain coffee shops, it ignores true education; for as long as the working-class or the uneducated can be readily shown to be prejudiced, inert, weak and impressionable, prey to lies and slanders, then the middle class can maintain its moral high ground and remain aloof from the daily interactions with oppressed groups, while shaking their collective finger and uttering oaths of condemnation in the most vehement rhetoric of indignation, deemed necessary to halt the corruption and eating away of the fabric of the body politic.

It is thus through lectures that swim against the tide, and debates to which Cohen, Abeysekara, Lines and others respond, that space is created, however uncomfortable, in which awkward issues can be dealt with. It is in that framework that we need to prod, poke and provoke not just the middle-class.

Notes:

* Dr. Mathews was a Lecturer in the University of No Ideas in Sydney. Ms. Maine, originally from Sri Lanka, was an Honours student at Flinders University. While this paper was jointly authored, different sections reflect more the orientation, experience and ethnicity of one author than the other.

[1]. Geoffrey Blainey is an academic who some years ago presented a speech at a small, provincial forum. He indicated that, at that time, Australia should consider slowing down its immigration intake, particularly that of Asians, to enable both immigrants and existing Australians to adapt to a multi-cultural society. The local newspaper reported on and syndicated the speech, which national tabloids made into a raging public debate, partly because Blainey's comments could be construed to imply that Australia had not fully abolished or perhaps could not yet afford to abolish its former White Australia policy—a notion that raised the racist fears and guilt that Australians were indeed (and still are) assimilationists and racist. For further details and comment see Lewins [1987].

More recently [ _The Bulletin_ , 30/8/94: p. 24], John Howard, former Federal Opposition Leader and Opposition Spokesman on Industrial Relations, and currently (1996) Prime Minister, has been quoted as saying that Blainey was a victim of an infamous smear campaign. It demonstrated how hard it is to introduce this topic (of immigration and racism) into discussion in Australia without being called a racist. People should be able to say that if change happens too quickly it can lead to tensions.

[2]. While racism is certainly not exclusively a working-class phenomenon but manifests in different ways according to class, the general point that racism is pervasive, is further indicated by Greg Sheridan [ _The Australian_ , 4/1/95: p. 9] having to respond in placating tones to what was a racist reaction to Asian boat-people. While I agree with neither the racist reaction to boat-people nor Sheridan's argument, the latter typifies the hegemonic discourse's response to the former.

That there is a growing "coming out"—or "whitelash"—of middle-class people and academics is shown in recent movements such as "angry white men" in the USA who, tired of being pushed aside in the name of PC and multi-culturalism, are opposing affirmative action, arguing, perhaps rightly so, that affirmative action and PC have produced more racism, not less, by causing resentment, and undermining legitimate black achievement [ _The Guardian_ , reprinted in _The Canberra Times_ , 14/1/95: p. 13].

[3]. A person of aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander descent who identifies as an aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he/she lives.

[4]. The late Fred Hollows was a greatly applauded eye surgeon who devoted much of his energy and medical skill in the field, helping not only Australian aborigines but also people of less developed countries. On one occasion he was named Australia's Father of the Year. To call him inhumane is simply ludicrous.

[5]. _Thomas the Tank Engine (and Friends)_ is a series of books, made into short TV presentations, for children 3 to 6 years of age. It features a fictitious country and stories that revolve around a number of locomotives which are the "talking" personae, and events involving them.

[6]. Trains presented as female are portrayed as stereotypically feminine, weak and "bitchy".

[7]. Derrin Hinch was/is an Australian radio and TV commentator and host, well known for his dogmatic views and persecutory reporting—often dubbed as the man you love to hate.

Summary Notes:

1. PC is a means by which certain views are "censored".

Political correctness as a method of censorship used by the thought police

The right to free speech is severely limited by PC;

This hegemonic discourse, the limitation of the right to criticize, has real effects.

2. The various means of PC & of setting agendas have been employed in the past to perpetrate racism & justify oppression.

3. Groups who use PC employ emotion, personal vilification & rhetoric to achieve censorship or compliance.

4. Mabo debate (etc) & white guilt are large arenas which exemplify this.

\-----------------------------

hegemony –

used to describe the notion of a political and a more general predominance which includes, as one of its key features, a particular way of seeing the world, human nature and relationships; this world view is not simply that of a ruling class or dominant group, but also involves an acceptance of the given reality as normal and commonsense by those in practice subordinated to it.

discourse–

a range of ideas which is either expressed or understood as containing the whole matter under discussion.

hegemonic discourse–

a range or system of ideas, perspectives and methodologies which are understood and generally accepted as directing and containing the whole matter under discussion.

discursive –

by reason or argument

References Cited:

Abeysekara, I. [1994].

Cohen Shoots the Victim, The Australian, May 17.

Borchhardt, K. & Buchheim, C. [1991].

The Marshall Plan and Key Economic Sectors, in Maier, C. (ed). The Marshall Plan and Germany. Berg. Oxford.

Brunton, R. [1993]. Black Suffering, White Guilt ? Aboriginal Disadvantage and the Royal Commission into Deaths in Custody. Institute of Public Affairs. Perth.

Chazan, N., Mortimer, R., Ravenhill. J. & Rothchild, D. [1988]. Politics and Society In Contemporary Africa. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Colorado.

Chung, T. [1986]. Triton and Dragon. Gian Publishing House. Delhi.

Cohen, B. [1994]. Africa in no Position to Point the Finger on Rights, The Australian, May 9.

Dorword, D. [1991]. Famine—The Economics and Politics of the Food Crisis in Africa, Current Affairs Bulletin, 68(7): 4-11.

D'Souza, D. [1991]. Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. The Free Press. N. Y.

Dulles, A. W. [1993]. The Marshall Plan. Berg. Oxford.

El-Khawas, M. & Abed-Rabbo. S. [1984]. American Aid in Israel. Amana Books. Vermont.

Firor, J. [1990]. The Changing Atmosphere: A Global Challenge. Yale University Press.

Frier, P. [1968]. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The Seabury Press. N. Y.

George, S. [1986]. A Fate Worse Than Debt. Penguin. London.

George, S. [1992]. The Debt Boomerang. Westview Press. Colorado.

Giddens, A. [1989]. Sociology. Polity Press. Cambridge.

Henderson, H. [1978]. Creating Alternative Futures. Berkeley Publishing Company. N. Y.

Lewins, F. [1987]. The Blainey Debate in Hindsight. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 23(2): 261-273.

Lines, M. J. [1994]. African Bloodshed Predates Colonists. Letter to the Editor, The Australian, May 25. p. 12.

MacMahon, J. ]1993]. Who Is An Aborigine ? Canberra Decision Overdue. News Weekly, July 31, p. 10.

Mesarovic M. & Pestel, E. [1975]. Mankind at the Turning Point. Hutchinson. London.

Morel, E. [1969]. The Black Man's Burden. Monthly Review Press. London.

Nakamura, T. [1991]. The Post War Japanese Economy. University of Tokyo.

News Weekly, [1993]. May 22, p. 4. and October 9, p. 9.

Onimode, B. [1989]. The IMF, The World Bank and the African Debt. Zed Press. London.

Pearce, D. [1989]. Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan.

Psychas, P. & Malaska, P. [1989]. Africa Beyond Famine. Tycooly Publishers. London.

Robinson, R., Gallagher, J., & Denny, A. [1963]. Africa and the Victorians. MacMillan. London.

Sheridan, G. [1994]. The Australian, January 4, p. 9.

The Bulletin, [1994]. August 30, p. 24.

Tressider, J. (ed). [1976]. Pictorial Atlas of the World. Hamlyn. London.

APPENDICES

I

_Africa in no position to point the finger on rights_ , by Barry Cohen, _The Australian_ , 9/5/94.

One of the nice things about having served with Edward Gough Whitlam is not only does one receive regular calls checking minutiae for his latest homily, but a copy invariably arrives with references to one's past achievements, annotated to ensure credit is given where due. It is one of his many endearing qualities and one his successors might well copy.

Perusing a recent effort, I could not but notice the following. "I can testify that African members of the International Olympic Committee were persuaded to support Sydney's Olympic 2000 bid not because two decades previously my government expunged the vestiges of White Australia, banned racially selected sporting teams, passed the Racial Discrimination Act and enacted the 1967 referendum giving the national Parliament jurisdiction to make special laws for the people of the Aboriginal race...

Familiar as I am with Australia's less than perfect record on matters racial, I was breathless at the suggestion that Australia should have to pass muster with African delegates about how we treat bur fellow human beings. Less than a handful of the more than 50 African nations can hold a candle to Australia's record on political rights and civil liberties,

It is ironic that in the same week democracy came to South Africa, a little to the north in excess of 100,00 Rwandans have been massacred, while hundreds of thousands fled to neighbouring Tanzania and Uganda.

While all of this has been dutifully reported in our media, one does not sense the same outrage that greeted the recent bomb attacks in Johannesburg and the massacre in Hebron. White killing black, Jew killing Arab are the stuff of which controversies and headlines are made. It appears a life is devalued if it is lost at the hands of someone of the same creed or colour. The Rwandans, no doubt, will be consoled by that.

Rwanda, however, is the mere tip of the African iceberg. Massacres, droughts and famine are witnessed nightly on TV, for high drama ensures high ratings, but little attention is given to the majority of African nations where oppression, brutality and corruption are the norm and the freedoms enjoyed in Western liberal democracies are the exception.

How awful some of these regimes are was brought home to me yet again when studying the New York-based Freedom House's recent Annual Survey of Freedom.

Established by Eleanor Roosevelt, Wendell Wilkie and others before World War II, Freedom House features on its executive the diverse political views of Zbigniew Brzezinski, David Eisenhower, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Ed Koch, Andrew Young, Max Kampelman and Margaret Chase Smith.

Since 1955 Freedom House has produced an annual freedom survey, rating each country on a scale of 1 to 7. Those who rate from 1 to 2.5 are considered free; from 3 to 5.5 partly free; and from 5.5 to 7, not free.

The latest survey shows how democracy has taken a beating since the halcyon days of 1989 and the fall of communism: the percentage of people designated free has slipped from 39% to 19%.

Looking at the organization's map of freedom—where free countries are shown in white, the partly free in grey, and the not free in black—a mere four of the African countries (Botswana, Namibia, Gambia and Mali) are in white.

Those listed below in the not-free category (together with their ratings) give new meaning to the term the Dark Continent:

Rated 5.5: Cameroon. Chad. Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Malawi. Mozambique, Rwanda, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tunisia and Uganda.

Rated 6: Djibouti, Egypt, Liberia, Nigeria and Congo.

Rated 6-5: Algeria, Mauritania, Sierra Leone and Zaire.

Rated 7: Angola, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Somalia and Sudan.

Put simply, Africa varies between a hellhole and a basket case. There will be those who ask, "But what can we do about it ?" The honest answer is, "Not a lot."

We can continue to give aid and to urge the United Nations to take more positive action, but more importantly we can start by telling African nations the truth as we see it rather than remaining mute for fear of being branded imperialist, racist or whatever epithet the critics of western liberal democracies hurl at them to divert attention from our own monstrous behaviour.

We can make it clear to those who don't democratize their country and provide all their citizens with political rights and civil liberties that they, to, will be ostracized economically, culturally and politically as other countries have been when their behaviour has been unacceptable.

Such criticism may seem unduly harsh for those that have not long thrown off the yoke of imperialism and are often miserably poor to boot; but unless they are called to account, their situation will worsen. In the meantime. let us hope when an African nation applies to host an international event we demand the same standard of behaviour as they demand of us.

II

_Cohen shoots the victim_. Letter to the Editor, by Indu Abeysekara (Nedlands, WA), _The Australian_ , 17/5/94).

Barry Cohen has a callous disregard for historical truths ( _Africa in no position to point the finger on rights_ , 9/5/94). His smug, complacent, prejudiced attitude is the logic of blaming the victim for the rape and its traumatic aftermath.

What Africa is today is a direct result of the brutality of colonial occupation. The likes of Barry Cohen expect Africans "to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and say thank you" (as one Africakaner writer had the temerity to state recently) and carry on.

They are expected to shrug off centuries of dehumanizing, brutal, divide-and-conquer strategies of colonial rule in a matter of a decade or two.

Africans might have done just that if not for the small matter of the new imperialism—that of the United States, the money markets, the trans-nationals, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank—taking up where the old colonialists left off.

The liberal democracies that Barry Cohen is so proud of are made possible only because the resources of the other half have been diverted to make the necessary affluence. During the 1980s the Third World sent to the US and other Western countries $220 billion more than was sent to them in any form.

Never before in history have the poor financed the rich on such a scale. The ironic truth is that democracy has been deterred in some places to make democracy possible in others.

Not only is Barry Cohen afflicted with a closed mind, he is suffering from compassion fatigue as well.

III

_African bloodshed predates colonists_. Letter to the Editor, by Michael J. Lines (Surry Hills, NSW). _The Australian_ , 25/5/94. p. 12.

There comes a time in every man's life when he must accept-responsibility for his own actions. For Africans, Indu Abeysekara (Letters, 17/5/94) might be willing to postpone that moment indefinitely, but others, like myself, will not be so forgiving.

While colonialism might not have been the best thing that could have happened to Africans, it certainly was not the worst. And while it may have caused them some problems, other peoples in other countries have faced much greater natural and man-made [ _sic_ ] disasters, and dealt with them much effectively. The Japanese and the Germans, for instance, have rebuilt, their countries from smoking heaps of rubble, with no natural resources, into extremely prosperous and orderly societies in less than 40 years.

The Jews endured 2000 years of racism, hatred, abuse and extermination before they were given the few acres of desert we now know as Israel. They have created a prosperous orderly society from nothing, despite once again having no resources and having 500 million angry Arabs spending 30 years and billions of oil dollars trying to drive them into the sea. Hong Kong is a nation with absolutely no natural resources, obviously thriving under the yoke of colonial oppression. Most people in Hong Kong openly fear the day when colonialism will end.

And even though it is not fashionable to mention it, or even suggest it, colonialism can also do a lot of good. Forgive me for being a little smug here, but the arrival of the European in Africa gave Africans access to a science and technology they had little hope of developing themselves.

It is important to understand here that the white man's great gift to this planet is that body of knowledge we call science and its related technology. White men may not give a Mercedes-Benz, but they will certainly show you how to make one.

Everything that has ever been discovered is in the public domain (with the possible exception of details on how to construct atomic bombs). In every school, in every University and in every public library. It may not be written in your language. but all you need to do is be willing to study, and it is yours. You don't even have to think it up for yourself, it is all there, just waiting to be learnt. The principles of the internal combustion engine. How to make steel. How to make an aeroplane. How to find and drill for oil. How to make plastic. And if you get really ambitious, how to go for a walk on the moon.

Colonialism does not make a man or a woman hack a neighbour's child to pieces. These are the actions of mature adults exercising their free will. Murder, greed, corruption and tribalism all predate colonialism in Africa by millions of years. It saddens me that Africans cannot organize themselves. It saddens me when 500,000 innocent people are murdered.

I will be saddened if and when civil war breaks out in South Africa. If the howitzers do open up across Johannesburg, if the Zulu and the ANC do get down to the serious business of killing each other, then I'm sure all the African apologists will chorus the old line, "this is the inevitable result of 300 years of brutal colonial oppression." Anyone who has read a little history, anyone who has read something other than a newspaper, will know that the Zulu were in the business of hacking their way through other South African tribes long before the white men arrived, and it is only the existence of a colonial government that has kept the Zulus and ANC apart.

All I have done all my life is study and work and pay tax and obey the law. Try as I might to stretch the boundaries of cause and effect, I cannot feel responsible for things that happened 12,000 kilometres away or 50 years before I was born. These days when people try and work my guilt lever, all I feel is frustration and anger. I suppose this means that I too have "compassion fatigue". So be it. Africa is a vast continent with abundant natural resources. Africans will have to sort Africa out for themselves. They won't be getting another cent from me.

END
LOST IN (THIRD) SPACE

### How I Lost My Ethnic Identity

Dr. Paul W. Mathews

&

Nicole Loong*

Introduction

To identify, or not to identify ? Is that the question we should be asking ? It is a question that has mystified thinkers for centuries, and it has indeed revealed itself to be of paramount importance to us in our everyday lives. Yet why is identity still so complex and confounding ? Why can we not answer the recurrent question of identity, of: who am I ?

Quite simply, we are asking the wrong question. Rather than try to answer the unanswerable, of what identity is, and of how we each formulate our identity, we should instead be questioning the very necessity of identity altogether. Why do we need identity ? And why do we keep searching for identity ?

The identity problematique has taken many twists and turns, and part of the journey has been well documented by Stuart Hall (1996). According to Hall, what has continually perplexed thinkers of identity is the notion of the subject existing prior to discourse, and hence being caught in the battle of Enlightenment thought. Althusser (1971), in his ISAs essay, attempted to disprove the Enlightenment notion of the subject, that the subject was in fact purely produced through discourse. However, Althusser's anti-humanist approach was severely criticized by Hirst (1979), who demonstrated that Althusser's theory failed, as Althusser could not precisely present the subject existing entirely within or purely as a result of discourse, that indeed the subject had to exist in some sense _a priori_ to discourse in order to be a subject of discourse.

Foucault also encountered the same dilemma. He attempted to overcome this by introducing an "ethics of the 'self'", yet McNay (1994) effectively demonstrates that Foucault, too, could not avoid the dilemma of encountering the independent or at least the _a priori_ subject.

If one examines post-modernist thinkers such as Butler (1993), Bhabha (1994) and Ang (2001), the issue of the independent subject has been neglected, side-stepped or lost altogether. While Butler attempts to continue Foucault's line of thinking, Bhabha and Ang seem to entirely fall short in this area. Thus the identity problematique can be seen to shift towards the arena of providing _solutions_ for "identity subjects" wholly within discourses rather than address the more perplexing and essentialist question of how the subject can exist outside of discourse—if indeed he/she can. This taken-for-granted notion of a subject existing outside of discourse is woefully assumed, and evident in the history of academic writing on ethnic identity formation.

However, even if we were to give up on the problematique of the independent subject, identity "solutions" put forward by such writers as Hall, Ang, Bhabha and others who raise a notion of a "third space", are still not without their problems. The theory of hybridity has been hailed as one of the most effective tools in contemporary society to transcend the fixed binaries of society by "blurring" (Ang, 2001: 16) the borders of identities. To borrow Bhabha's term, a "Third Space" (1994: 36) is an abstract space that provides the ambivalence needed to negotiate new identities in an era of globalization, and is a site of contestation, negotiation and struggle. It is a site (of contestation) created by competing discourses.

Thus, what has been entirely ignored is that hybridity unintentionally subscribes to the dominant hegemonic discourse of categorization and control which it above all claims to oppose. Therefore, the question of identity remains to be answered.

It seems that the question of identity is an issue which continually haunts us. Even in pre-Enlightenment times the issue of the independent self was evident, as Hinchman (1996: 490) points out: the Enlightenment notion of the autonomous subject was in fact largely influenced by the Stoic sage. What emerges is a clear pattern from the Stoics, to the Church, to Enlightenment, to post-modernity, the recurring idea of the autonomous subject passing through the ages but disguised under a different name. The Self, Soul and Identity all assume one basic entity—an essence, a core self. Despite post-modernist efforts to show that there is no core self, that there is no essence of the subject, we are still searching for identity ! We have been consumed by the issue of identity, but for what purpose ? Even our arguments and debates over identity are seen to be necessary, when in actuality the problematique of identity is itself a constructed discourse, and we are merely subscribing to this discourse within a post-Enlightenment, rationalist framework by attempting to control nature (the subject) and place it within a system of discourses. Identity has developed into a social problem; it is sought after through different means; those without it have no purpose. Yet what we have failed to notice is what Foucault was trying to painstakingly explain: what we are dealing with is power, in all its diffuse forms: power over the embodied individual in order to control. In other words, the idea of "identity" is a form of social control. Although identity was a philosophical problem for and since the Stoics, what has evolved since the Enlightenment are the intricate power relations that now dominate society and reinforce the need for identity as a necessary tool for those in power. We have transcended the Durkheimian functionalist perspective and now are faced with the power/knowledge relations which seek to control the embodied subject, of which "identity" is an integral component.

Whether it is the category of the soul or the category of identity, we are still subscribing to a hegemonic discourse of categorization and control, and we are still dictated to by the Enlightenment notion of Reason to answer the unanswerable question of identity. We are the demons of our own design, and the downfall of our own existence.

Having thus problematized the problematique of identity and subject, this paper does not aim to provide solutions; rather, it is a paper directed at questioning the fundamental essence of our questioning. In doing so we can not deny our own subscription to the cyclical, never-ending problematique, but we do hope to problematize the themes that have overshadowed the notions of subject and identity and the problematique they have historically presented.

In doing so, we critique the developments and contradictions of the "identity debate", and while in this process we may indeed contribute to the debate itself, we argue this approach has the capacity to at least momentarily pause the debate. This provides an opportunity to step back and reflect on the recurring issues of the debate and its history, and indeed the idea of "identity" itself. And while we may continue to ask the unanswerable, we also need to consider why we continue to ask it. Thus, in this paper we argue that scholars have not adequately addressed the debate because they have failed to see both identity, and the debate surrounding it, as embedded in discourse, and have largely failed to see these issues and processes as instruments of power/knowledge and control.

Key Literature

This critique arises from research into self-identity construction among Australian-born Chinese (ABC), leading to an evaluation of the literature on ethnicity and identity. What emerges from the following selective literature survey is a critique of the history of literature and scholarship on ethnicity and identity. The selection aims at providing a trace of the developments and contradictions in the theories of and approaches to ethnicity and identity. We have subdivided these theoretical approaches evident in the literature into four broad sections; however, these sections are not fixed, but rather each section overlaps and is contingent upon the others. The survey begins with a brief history of Australian immigration, addressing misconceptions of Asian immigrants. The ensuing two sections provide an overview of ethnicity and identity, addressing both concepts and their relations to society; and finally, the survey concludes with an analysis of the notion of "hybridity" or the "third space" and how the notions of ethnicity and identity are interrelated. What the survey will indicate are the contradictions in the formulation of identity, ethnicity, and hence ethnic identity for ABC, as well as raise the questions: for whom is identity important; what constitutes identity, can there be a "core" identity, and does "an" identity exist _a priori_ , to be inscribed by discourse such that "identity" can be reformulated (by subject or discourse) to fit an alternative identity category within a system of categorization which itself is a result of discourse ?

History of Asian Immigration

Jean Martin's (1978) account of established Australian institutions and their responses to the increased presence of immigrants in the 1970s offers an effective base for subsequent detailed work regarding ethnicity. Unlike the limited work published during and prior to this period, which dealt largely with immigrants in their negative stereotyped form, Martin mostly disregards the migrant perspective of the immigrant situation; rather, she uses a sociological approach to focus on the responses to immigrants by the social institutions themselves.

The study conducted by Martin is a sympathetic approach towards immigrants, and reveals the problematic power relations between established institutions and immigrants. Martin raises several significant issues. Firstly, the issue of immigrants as being defined as a "social problem" (1978: 36)—because of their non-assimilation—is attacked, with the "blame" reverting back on to the institutions. By placing the emphasis on the institutions, rather than the immigrant, Martin deliberately illuminates the ambiguities present in social relations. Secondly, what is brought into focus is the connection between knowledge and power, as Martin notes that the construction of knowledge "takes place in the service of interests and identities" (1978: 24) and thus she questions the position and actions of institutions, the creators and maintainers of knowledge, towards immigrants.

From this analysis Martin could have taken the issue of migrants and explored the underlying realities behind their non-assimilation, but Martin's aim was not to understand the reasoning of how and why "public definitions of migrants, migrant characteristics, experiences and problems have emerged", but rather she was concerned with "the structure of that knowledge and its relation to institutional policies, organization and services" (1978: 11). Martin does not explicitly deal with any theories of ethnicity, although she does allow for the possibility of "ethnicity" per se to become a relevant issue. The themes encapsulated in Martin's work continue in contemporary literature, thus Martin's study is useful for an understanding of the development of the study of ethnicity, upon which later theories of ethnicity attempted to grasp why ethnicity in Australia is such an enduring phenomenon. Nevertheless, what is absent from Martin's work is the problem of (ethnic) identity; despite her concern with the structures of knowledge that define the (ethnic) subject or the immigrant, these categories as constructed by power/knowledge relations, as outside the ethnic subject, are simply taken for granted at best, or simply assumed categories and identities that exist as a result of the power/knowledge of institutions on which she indeed focuses.

A few years after Martin, Bottomley's and Lepervanche's (1984) account of Australian immigration aimed to destabilize the existing approaches taken towards the issue of immigrants. Their argument is that Australian immigrants are presented as being on the periphery to dominant Australian society, and therefore the analysis is aimed at challenging the structure of the social science discipline itself:

"We believe that it is not possible to include migrants as an integral part of Australian society within the framework of the social sciences, which continues to legitimize existing power relations. Our approach, therefore, is a critique from the left. We want to alter the terms in which discussion about Australian immigration has taken place" (ibid: viii – ix).

Bottomley's and Lepervanche's account is an extension of Martin's work, and functions to further emphasize the growing importance of ethnicity in Australia by interrogating its relationship to "class, gender and 'race'" (ibid: vii), which construct the fundamental base of Australian society and how that relationship is perceived or dealt with in the social sciences. As "a critique from the left" it is clearly focused on structures of power, embedded in wider economic relationships of production vis-à-vis the more diffuse forms of Foucauldian power/knowledge. As with Martin, these two authors merely assume the categories of migrant and ethnic, as clear cut, without challenging the subjective positioning of those who fill those categories which appear to be merely inscribed.

Despite the wealth of literature pertaining to the history of immigration and the circumstances of immigrants, such issues shall not be addressed in this survey. Rather, Inglis et al. (1992) provide an exemplary culmination of that literature. The purpose of the analysis by Inglis et al. is to present factual evidence of the issues addressed in the past literature, in order to clarify the "widespread misconceptions about Asian immigration" (ibid: xii).

Inglis et al argue that patterns of immigration have been chiefly dictated "by changing forms of incorporation into the world market" (ibid: 53). The analysis documents the behaviour of the Australian government throughout the twentieth century and the factors contributing to the manipulation and nature of immigration policies, with explicit reference to the economic implications towards Asians. Employment data are relied on in order to justify their research, which lies in succession to the issues raised by Martin (1978).

However, Inglis et al. also identify the limitations of past analysis, including their own, asserting that a significant factor not examined was the social experiences of Asian immigrants, and furthermore that "qualitative studies of Asian communities in Australia are lacking" (ibid: xv).

This analysis is significant in raising several issues, amongst which is the documentation of the government's perception of Asians and Asian immigration; it provides an explanatory position on the contemporary situation towards immigrants by revealing that, if there is marginalization directed towards Asians, it is not a new phenomenon, which much of the past scholarship and literature documents. Secondly, Inglis et al assert their own limitations, and justify the need for further research—which has since 1992 been undertaken to some extent, but again, as we shall see, within existing discourses and categorizations.

Again, as with preceding literature, categories of "Asian", "migrant", "ethnicity", etc are simply used in terms of existing discourses, almost justified by reference to these phenomena as having a long history, and treating the subject of the phenomena as having "experiences" as categories labeled "Asian", "migrant", "ethnic", etc, within existing discourses.

Attitudes Towards Asians in Australia and the Drive Toward Multiculturalism

Ip et al.'s (1992) study of current perceptions and attitudes towards Asians in Australia offers insight into the notion of tolerance and the model of multiculturalism that has been formulated in Australia. This study, although employing a limited sample size, reveals the continued ambivalence felt by Australians towards "the Asian presence", confirming Inglis et al's. (1992) summation of the continued marginalization of Asians under a renamed ideology of assimilation.

The study raises several significant issues. Firstly, it reveals an overall ambivalent attitude towards Asians, with the affirmation of the general negative stereotypes. Secondly, it reveals the enduring salience of the notion of difference utilized to create an "us" and "them". Underlying this attitude, as well as the recognition of difference, of a "them" and "us", persists a notion of categories, categories of (ethnic) identity by which we—and scholars—can "identify" the Other, compare, police, control, and even somehow overcome by means of assimilation, even if only by stealth—ie. by "multi-culturalism." But more important for our purposes in looking at the history of ideas and scholarship dealing with (ethnic) identity, is an underlying acknowledgment and treatment of the Other as somehow distinguishable, different, rooted in an "otherness", an identity, cultural or otherwise, which somehow must be challenged, dealt with, and in some way assimilated or obliterated.

The issue of multiculturalism highlights this. Contrary to popular belief, which, paradoxically, wishes to subscribe to a notion of equity, multiculturalism in fact by its very definition and practice makes salient difference, which always entails inequity and power relationships.

Documentation of the history of Australian immigration and the issues of immigrants as noted above are followed by an analysis of multiculturalism and its impact on Australian society. Stratton's and Ang's (1998) comparative analysis of cultural difference and national identity in the USA and Australia present such an analysis of multiculturalism and its impact on Australian society. Although ethnicity and identity are not addressed explicitly by these authors, they are inherent factors to consider when examining the structure and implications of multiculturalism.

Stratton and Ang criticize the respective policies of multiculturalism of both Australia and the USA, claiming that both are based on ideological constructs that are simply unrealistic and unattainable (1998: 157). The analysis is a critical approach towards the issue of multiculturalism, and is central when thinking about the structures of societies in contemporary society and consequential effects on immigrants. In the USA, race is the crucial factor for utilizing multiculturalism in order to assert difference. Conversely, in Australia, race is suppressed and multiculturalism is utilized to promote a discourse of ethnicity. However, the inherent difficulty of such a policy is that it "suppresses the continued hegemony of Anglo-Celtic Australian culture by making it [race] invisible" (ibid: 158). Race thus becomes a debilitating factor in the pursuit of multiculturalism, and Asians in Australia are used to illustrate this argument:

"the 'Asian' presence in Australia provides us with a test case for examining the difficulty faced by the multiculturalist imagination in accommodating racial—rather than just ethnic—difference. In its emphasis on culture and ethnicity, race still signals the limits of the imagining of the (now ethnically diverse) national community" (ibid: 159).

Stratton's and Ang's analysis problematizes the issue of multiculturalism for the dominant and the marginalized, and reveals the implications of race when dealing with individuals of Asian heritage: According to the Australian policy of multiculturalism, being an Australian means that you can be "Asian", but being an Asian sometimes denies the possibility of being able to identify as Australian. Such implications clearly affect how and why the Other is identified, and for what purpose.

Larbalestier (1999) documents how 'whiteness' is acutely embedded and naturalized within Australian society, which consequently impacts on the method by which individuals negotiate their cultural and self-identities. This critique exposes the complexities in dealing with ethnicity and identity in an era of globalization and continued marginalization of ethnic groups.

Larbalestier's account focuses "on the taken-for-grantedness of whiteness" (1999: 143) which is perpetuated in the daily activities of individuals and groups. To support this claim, Larbalestier refers to a discussion she had with her colleagues concerning their ethnic heritage (ibid: 148). The common theme which arose from the discussion was that Australians with Scottish or Irish (i.e. 'white') Australian backgrounds, despite their membership in traditional Irish and Scottish customs within a multi-culturalist framework, do not refer to themselves as Scottish Australian or Irish Australian, simply as Australian. Larbalestier argues that this subsequently influences the idea of an essentialist framework and "a core Australian identity" (ibid: 146) centred on whiteness, reinforcing in negative terms (vis-à-vis USA assertion of race) the racialization of Australian society through difference (ibid: 147).

While the foregoing limited and selective literature addresses different issues and utilizes different approaches, what is thematic in that scholarship and literature is the underlying idea that each (white) Australian possesses a core identity, and that immigrants also each possess a core identity derived from their country of origin; both are based on ethnicity. What becomes evident, however, is the conflict of these assumed core identities. Thus the issue of ethnicity begins to be revealed and hence is where the literature now turns.

Ethnicity

Guibernau and Rex (1997) offer a selection of extracts grounded on ethnicity, nationalism and migration. Several extracts, specifically Weber, Smith and Eriksen, are useful in formulating the complex relationship between ethnicity and nationalism, on the basis of the seminal work by Anderson (1983). Ethnicity has invoked both positive and negative sentiments in the past, and is no less controversial today.

Guibernau and Rex accentuate the complexity of ethnicity, emphasizing that ethnicity is a cultural and political instrument utilized both to define oneself and also others, meaning that "there is the ethnicity [ethnic identity] which the members of a group claim and feel for themselves...(and) there is the ethnicity which is attributed to them by others" (1997: 8)

This argument implies that this is where 'conflict' occurs, where ABC encounter, negotiate and counter identities and attributes set upon them by external and internal influences.

Identity

We now turn to the issue of identity per se—which has thus far unquestionably been assumed to exist based on ethnicity either _a priori_ **or** as a product of discourse, or both—and its relation to society, although what has been made apparent with the former literature is that ethnicity and identity are contingent upon each other.

Gilroy's (1996) account of the definitions and conceptions of the term "identity" is useful for understanding the emergence of identity as a necessary issue and how the term should be considered in contemporary society. Gilroy's brief paper is on how identity should be conceptualized, and raises the issue of identity as being "a chaotic process that can have no end" (1996: 48).

This notion of a fluid identity is expanded upon by Hall (1996). Much of the literature of the 1990s consistently and extensively cite Hall, who is regarded as a major theorist on ethnic identity. Hall asserts that identities "are a process of becoming rather than being" (1996: 4) and indicates that the salience of individual identity emerged out of the post-Enlightenment period. However, this philosophical debate about what identity is was brought to an end by Hirst and his notion of the individual as being "presented as the source of the meanings of which it is an effect" (ibid: 7). Hall attempts to solve this paradox through Foucault and Butler, yet is still left asking the question of what is identity ? Butler made some progress on this issue by exploring notions of sexual identity (ibid: 15), yet it remains for further studies to apply Butler's concepts of gender and sexual identity to ethnicity.

Hall supports Foucault in the amalgamation of discursive practice and the theory of the subject, because it is at their point of union that arises "the question of identification" (ibid: 2). ABC reveal to some extent how discursive practices such as stereotyping and socialization practices create identities, and how the identities of the subject attempt to counteract, assimilate, or respond to such practices.

This connection is also discussed by Giddens (1991). The notion of individual identity construction and the embodiment of power are also discussed by Giddens (1991), but he also takes into account the interaction between the embodiment of power and the institutions of power. His work on self-identity stands at the opposite end of the continuum to Martin (1978), and reveals the dramatic transformation of the once static bureaucracy to one of internal reflexivity. Giddens implicitly recognizes that identity too is a constant state of change based on this reflexive relationship.

The main argument sustained by Giddens (1991) is that "high modernity" or "late modernity" (ibid: 4), is inescapable by the individual. The individual is inextricably linked with the globalizing power of modernity, and in the active pursuit and maintenance of self-identity individuals are "shaped by—yet also shape—the institutions of modernity" (ibid: 2). This differs from Martin's work where she very much emphasized the place and identity of immigrants as shaped by monolithic, unthinking institutions, and as (ethnic) identity as given, as unproblematic.

This analysis provides a theoretical field in which to situate and use research on ABC. It provides a succinct example of the reflexive individual embodied with power responding and contributing to, and maintaining, Giddens' notion of the reflexivity of modernity. An analysis and documentation of the construction of self-identity of ABC is "part of the _reflexivity_ of modernity: they serve routinely to organize, and alter, the aspects of social life they report on or analyze" (Giddens, 1991: 14). His analysis of self-identity construction is pertinent in order to analyze individuals and their relationship of reflexivity with institutions. In doing so it is important to be able to comprehend the notion of "anxiety" and the coping mechanisms utilized by individuals (ABC) in everyday situations. This notion raises relevant questions about ABC and how they problematize and interrogate "identity".

Thus, are racializing practices, and the notion of fixed binary categories such as "Australian" and "Asian", a coping mechanism for Australians in an era of modernity/globalization ? If so, what implications does this have for the ABC ?

Yuanfeng (2001) illustrates Giddens' notion of the interplay between the reflexive individual and institutions through the autobiographical writings of Chinese Australians. This account offers an insight into methods utilized by Chinese Australians to construct their identities and argues that, "self-constructions are historically contingent acts" (2001: 152). Therefore, the experiences and definitions on what it means to be Chinese, Australian, or any identity, have changed, and through a process of reflexivity characteristic of modernity, continue to change.

Identity as Performance

Identity, as a social construction, is suggested by Goffman (1973) and is considered to have a performative character. Behaviour is "associated with"—or perhaps is purely—role playing and Goffman proposes that these performative roles are generalized and abstract, yet have the capacity to:

"become institutionalized in terms of the abstract stereotyped expectations to which it gives rise, and tends to take on meaning and stability apart from the specific tasks which happen at the time to be performed in its name. The front becomes a "collective representation" and a fact in its own right" (ibid, 1973: 27).

Goffman problematizes the nature of identity and identity construction, asserting that both the individual and the "audience" are easily able to define and project identities largely based on assumptions. But he does not explain what these assumptions are, from where they come, how they operate, nor how they are received, incorporated or challenged by the Other. However, he does note—by asserting that _both the individual and the "audience"_ are easily able to define and project identities—that it is a dialectical process in which the construction of identity is (as much?) a part of the subject as it is imposed on the subject, implicitly suggesting there is a subject _a priori_ to construction. But he does not say what this subject (or subject's identity) is—a _tabula rasa_?

This idea of the subject being a clean slate becomes evident in Butler's treatment of identity, despite her best efforts to resolve the paradox. Butler's (1993) work can be seen as an extension of Foucault's work. Butler goes one step further than Foucault by relating the subject with psychoanalysis as a base to study notions of gender and sexual identity. She supports Foucault in his argument that the subject is produced within discourse, stating that it is discourse which defines and produces subjects:

"The category of 'sex' is, from the start, normative; it is what Foucault has called a 'regulatory ideal'. In this sense, then, 'sex' not only functions as a norm, but is part of a regulatory practice that produces the bodies it governs, that is, whose regulatory force is made clear as a kind of productive power, the power to produce – demarcate, circulate, differentiate – the bodies it controls. Thus, 'sex' is a regulatory ideal whose materialization is compelled, and this materialization takes place (or fails to take place) through certain highly regulated practices. In other words, 'sex' is an ideal construct which is forcibly materialized through time. It is not a simple fact or static condition of the body, but a process, whereby regulatory norms materialize 'sex' and achieve this materialization through a forcible reiteration of those norms." (ibid: 1-2).

The theme of power is continued by Butler, claiming that "regulatory power _produces_ the subjects it controls, that power is not only imposed externally but works as the regulatory and normative means _by which subjects are formed_ " (ibid: 22, italics mine).

She links this theme of power with psychoanalysis by questioning the way in which "sex" discourses assume a naturalizing position in society, for example, heterosexuality. This in turn creates an opposing space of the Other—sexual/gendered, or ethnic—through exclusion:

"This exclusionary matrix by which subjects are formed thus requires the simultaneous production of a domain of abject beings, those who are not yet 'subjects', but who form the constitutive outside to the domain of the subject" (ibid: 3).

Butler states that the subject is _produced by discourse_ and supports this claim by using gender as an example:

"If gender is a construction, must there be an 'I' or a 'we' who enacts or performs that construction ? How can there be activity, a constructing, without presupposing an agent who precedes and performs that activity ? How would we account for the motivation and direction of construction without such a subject ? As a rejoinder, I would suggest that it takes a certain suspicion toward grammar to reconceive the matter in a different light. For if gender is constructed, it is not necessarily constructed by an 'I' or a 'we' who stands before that construction in any spatial or temporal sense of 'before'. Indeed, it is unclear that there can be an 'I' or a 'we' who has not been submitted, subjected to gender, where gendering is, among other things, the differentiating relations by which speaking subjects come into being. Subjected to gender, but subjectivated by gender, the 'I' neither precedes nor follows the process of this gendering, but _emerges only within and as the matrix of gender relations themselves_ " (ibid: 7, italics mine).

This argument suggests that this gendered 'I' is totally constructed by "society"/discourse; neither preceding nor following, suggesting a _tabula rasa_ , a subject non-existent before discourse creates it. But again Butler asks the wrong question: who/what is "I" vis-à-vis do we in fact have an "I" or need one ? The very notion of an "I", the problematique itself, is a construction of discourse of the Enlightenment.

Butler further asserts that if we are to conceive of a notion of subject agency, then we must see it in relation to discourse, which suggests that subject and agency can only exist in relation to something else, not independent.

The key word in butler's theory is "if", not "agency." _If_ there is _agency_ , it is to be found, paradoxically, in the possibilities opened up in and by that constrained appropriation of the regulatory law, by the materialization of that law, the compulsory appropriation and identification with those normative demands. Thus again identity exists only in relation to the other (which is also assumed, implicitly at least, to have a (fixed, core) identity/existence, or as a range of possibilities. The forming, crafting, bearing, circulation, signification of that (sexed) body will not be a set of actions performed in compliance with the law; on the contrary, they will be a set of actions mobilized by the law, the citational accumulation and dissimulation of the law that _produces_ material effects, the lived necessity of those _effects_ as well as the lived contestation of that necessity." (ibid: 12).

Notable here is that the terminology is all passive, as though the "I" is an effect, a product, produced by.........?

Again, she hints at a binary, of some (fixed, core ?) entity, the subject, as existing in relation to an other—but does not elaborate if this subject is created by that other—when she agrees that there is something existent outside of discourse, but only in relation to—or product of—it:

"but this is not an absolute 'outside', an ontological thereness that exceeds or counters the boundaries of discourse; as a constitutive 'outside', it is that which can _only be thought – when it can – in relation to that discourse_ , and at its most tenuous borders." (ibid: 8).

Is this structuralism dressed up as post-structuralism ?.

Are we to resolve this dilemma, or ask another question ? The problem of identity itself is a construction social/discourse and serves the purpose of attempting to confirm that we each have an identity. That being the case, who benefits from this absolute categorization: power-holders, rationality, science, police/ing agents ? The effects of establishing identity as a "real" thing generates a normative subject, of what an identity is/should be, setting up a regulatory ideal by which we judge not just others but ourselves. In this sense identity, and the idea of identity, is truly hegemonic.

* Dr. Mathews was still, god-forbid, a Lecturer at the University of No Ideas in Sydney. Nikki Loong was an Honours student at the same University. While this paper was jointly authored, Nikki conducted much of the research and writing, over which I had supervision.

References Cited

Ang, Ien. On Not Speaking Chinese: Living Between Asia and the West. London: Routledge, 2001.

Ang, Ien, and John Stratton. "Multicultural Imagined Communities: Cultural Difference and National Identity in the USA and Australia." Multicultural States: Rethinking Difference and Identity. Ed. D. Bennet. London: Routledge, 1998.

Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994.

Bottomley, Gillian. After the Odyssey: A Study of Greek Australians. Studies in Society and Culture. Eds. Jeremy Becket and Grant Harman. St Lucia: University Of Queensland Press, 1979.

Bottomley, Gillian. From Another Place: Migration and the Politics of Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex". New York: Routledge, 1993.

Giddens, Anthony. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity, 1991.

Goffman, Erving. The Presentations of Self in Everyday Life. New York: The Overlook Press, 1973.

Guibernau, Montserrat, and John Rex. The Ethnicity Reader: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Migration. Cambridge: Polity, 1997.

Hall, Stuart. "Who Needs 'Identity'?" Questions of Cultural Identity. Eds. Stuart Hall and Paul Du Gay. London: Sage, 1996.

Hirst, Paul. On Law and Ideology. London: Macmillan, 1979.

Inglis, Christine, et al., eds. Asians in Australia: The Dynamics of Migration and Settlement. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 1992.

Ip, David, et al. Images of Asians in Multicultural Australia: A Report Submitted to the Toyota Foundation November 1992. Sydney: University Of Sydney, 1992.

Larbalestier, Jan. "What Is This Thing Called White? Reflections on 'Whiteness' and Multiculturalism." The Future of Australian Multiculturalism: Reflections on the Twentieth Anniversary of Jean Martin's the Migrant Presence. Eds. Ghassan Hage and Rowanne Couch. Sydney: University Of Sydney, 1999.

Lepervanche, Marie M. De. Indians in a White Australia: An Account of Race, Class and Indian Immigration to Eastern Australia. Studies in Society: 22. Ed. Ronald Wild. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, 1984.

Martin, Jean. The Migrant Presence: Australian Responses, 1947-1977: Research Report for the National Population Inquiry. Hornsby: George Allen & Unwin, 1978.

McNay, Lois. Foucault: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity, 1994.

Yuanfang, Shen. Dragon Seed in the Antipodes: Chinese- Australian Autobiographies. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2001.

Other works by Dr. Paul Mathews

Dr. Paul Mathews is an anthropologist and sociologist who has worked on Philippine issues for 25 years, and also spent 2 years in Taiwan. He has written extensively about Philippine society and culture in such areas as health, gender relations and sexuality, values, and economic development. He is currently freelancing, following a Research Fellowship at the Australian National University. He is Secretary of the Philippine Studies Association of Australasia, and former Managing Editor of _Pilipinas, A Journal of Philippine Studies._

Books and refereed book chapters

Cheng, Y-Y., & Mathews, P. W. (eds). Policy and Practice: Education & ESL in Taiwan (due for publication 2016).

Kumar, A. & Mathews, P. W. 2011. Research and Writing Skills. NY: Lulu Press. ISBN: 978-1-4466-0560-8

Mathews, P. W. 2010. Asian Cam Models. Giraffe Books. (Reissued as an E-book, Warrior Publishers, 2014). https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/447769

Lee, S-H. K. & Mathews, P. W. 2006. Travellers in Taiwan. ISBN 0-646-46836-7. In English and Mandarin. http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/458374

Umali, J. (with P. Mathews). MY RIDDLE BOOK. 170 all-time riddles & jokes.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/456860

Kumar, A. & Mathews, P. W. 2002. Globalization and Local Knowledge: The Politics of Health Beliefs in South Asia. Delhi: Atma Ran & Sons & University of New Delhi.

Mathews, P. W. & Boon, H. 2001. Annotated Bibliography of Alternative Medicine. Sydney. 143pp. Forthcoming 2016 as an e-book.

Mathews, P. W. 2000. Filipinos in Canberra: Networks and Social Support. UWS Monograph. 53pp. + Appendices. ISBN: 0 646 43415-2

Mathews, P. W. et al. 1997. Integrated Language & Learning Practices in the Humanities. University of No Ideas, Sydney.

Mathews, P. W. 1995. Filipinists in Australia: Directory & Bibliography. Department of Political & Social Change, RSPacS, ANU. Canberra. For the PSAA. 380pp.

Mathews, P. W. 1994. "Compadrazgo: Culture as Performance", in Cultures and Texts: Representations of Philippine Society. Eds. R. Pertierra & E. Ugarte. University of the Philippines Press. Quezon City. Pp. 47-79.

Mathews, P. W. 1992. Directory of Filipinists in Australia. Philippine Studies Association of Australia. Canberra. 55pp.

Mathews, P. W. 1992. "Surigao By-Passed", in Turner, M. M., May, R. J. & Turner, L. R. eds. Mindanao: Land of Unfulfilled Promise. New Day Publishers. Quezon City. Pp. 87-96.

Mathews, P. W. 1987. Male Prostitution: Two Monographs. (a) Some Preliminary Observations of Male Prostitution in Manila. (b) On 'Being A Prostitute'. Australian Book Co. & Distributors: Sydney. 98pp.

Mathews, P. W. 1982. The Things We Do For Money: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Taxis But The Driver Wouldn't Tell You. Australian Book Co. & Distributors: Sydney. 128pp. Forthcoming 2016 as an e-book.

Mathews, P. W. Working in the Night (Gawin ng Gabi). Peasant Resistance to Family Planning in the Philippines. (in progress).

Articles in refereed journals

Mathews, P. W. The Social and Economic Value of Children in Philippine Society, Philippine Sociological Review, 34(1): 37-55. 1986.

Mathews, P. W. Some Preliminary Observations of Male Prostitution in Manila, Philippine Sociological Review, 35(3-4): 55-74. 1987.

Mathews, P. W. On 'Being A Prostitute', Journal of Homosexuality, 15(3-4): 119-135. 1988.

Mathews, P. W. Medical Idioms as Legitimate Responses to Family Planning, Social Analysis, Vol. 31. Pp. 103-25. 1992.

Mathews, P. W. The Language Debate—The Case for Pilipino, Asian Studies Review, 15(3): 131-132. 1992.

Mathews, P. W. Family Planning and Community in the Philippines and Bali, Philippine Studies, 40(4): 435-463, 1992.

Mathews, P. W. There Ain't No AIDS in the Barrio: The Politics of AIDS in the Philippines, National Aids Bulletin, pp. 47-49. 1993.

Mathews, P. W. Compadrazgo: Culture as Performance, RIMA, 28(1): 35-58. 1994.

Mathews, P. W. A Note on the Politics of AIDS in the Philippines, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 24(1): 95-100. 1994.

Mathews, P. W. Social Control in Non-Allopathic Therapeutics, Journal of Social Inquiry, 5(1): 17-36. 1995.

Mathews, P. W. Church, Religion and Fertility in the Philippines: The BRAC Study Revisited. Philippine Studies, 44(12): 69-104. 1996.

Mathews, P. W. Introduction, in Nation-Building: The Case of the Philippines, 1896-1996, Pilipinas, special issue #27. 1996. Pp. vii-ix.

Mathews, P. W. Voodoo as a Medical System, Journal of Social Inquiry, 7(2): 24-40. 1997.

Mathews, P. W. Land Rights for Gay Whales: Political Correctness or Ideology Under the Mat ? J of Social Inquiry, 8(2): 64-83. 1998.

Mathews, P. W. Review article: Philippine Gay Culture: The Last 30 Years. Binabae to Bakla, Silahis to MSM. By J. N. Garcia. Asian Studies Review, 23(3): 407-412. 1999.

Mathews, P. W. Hierarchy of Medical Resort in a Philippine Barrio, Pilipinas, #34, 2000. Pp. 111-149.

Mathews, P. W. & Kumar, A. An Exploratory Study Of Alternative Medicine Use In Western Sydney. J Social Inquiry, 11(2): 17-37. 2001.

Mathews, P. W. & Colbourn, A. Filipinas' Experience of Migration in Western Sydney, Pilipinas, #39. 2002. Pp. 76-89.

Mathews, P. w., Whitty, M., Sheaves, F. Using Alternative Therapies: A Survey from Western Sydney, J of Social Inquiry, 13(2): 22-42. 2003.

Mathews, P. W. & Nocheseda, E. I. Manifesting Palaspas: Palm Leaf Art in Philippine Life and Culture, Pilipinas, #41, September 2003. Pp. 18-45.

Mathews, P. W. Transgendering Sexuality in the Philippines, Pilipinas, #46. 2006.

Mathews, P. W. Are They Serious ? The Discourse of Family Planning and Nationalism in the Philippines, Pilipinas (2007).

Mathews, P. W. & Loong, N. Lost in (Third) Space: How I Lost My Ethnic Identity, Journal of Social Inquiry, 15(2). 2005.

Mathews, P. W. Learning English in Taiwan: A Comparative Commentary, Tung Nang Institute of Technology J of Linguistics, 2005. Pp. 367-372.

Mathews, P. W., Owen, C., Ramsey, W., Corrigan, G., Bassett, M. & Wenzel, J. Assessment of a Peer Review Process among Interns at an Australian Hospital, Australian Health Review, 34: 1- 7. 2010.

Owen, C., Mathews, P. W., Ramsey, W., Phillips, C., Corrigan, G., Bassett, M. & Wenzel, J. INTERN CULTURE. INTERN-AL RESISTANCE, Australian Health Review, Sept. 2011.

Mathews, P. W. & Lee, S-H. Panda-Ering To China Taiwan And China: Pre & Post Olympics. Taiwan Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (submitted June 2009). Shorter version submitted June 2009 to Taipei times.

Mathews, P. W. & Lee, S-H. Taiwan English Education: What's Rite, What's Rote ? (paper in progress).

Mathews, P. W., Recabar, J. & Navarro, L. Noli me Tangere: When Prostitution is not Prostitution. Sabangan (Crossroads), Issue #1, August 2014.

Mathews, P. W., Jowsey, T. & Yen, L. Time spent on health related activities associated with chronic illness: a scoping literature review. BMC Public Health (in press 2012).

Mathews, P. W. et al. Measuring Co-ordination in Health Care. (submission August 2011).

Mathews, P. W. et al. Measuring Continuity of Care and Medication in Health Care. (submission August 2011).

Cheng, Y-Y., Guey, C-C., Mathews, P., Kiyonaga, K., & Shibata S. English as a Foreign Language in Elementary Schools: The Case of Taiwan. Shumei University Journal #9. Pp. 44- 81. 2012.

Cheng, Y-Y., Guey, C-C., Mathews, P., Kiyonaga, K., & Shibata S. English as a Foreign Language in Junior High Schools: The Case of Taiwan. Shumei University Journal #10. Pp. 19- 65. 2013.

Mathews, P. W. (n. d.). Cam models, sex-work, and job immobility in the Philippines. (Submitted July 2015, Feminist Economics).

Mathews, P. W. (2015). Piece-Rates as Inherently Exploitative: Adult/Asian Cam Models As Illustrative. Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry.

Conference and working papers

The Value of Children in the Philippines. Staff/postgraduate seminar, UNSW, 1986.

Compadrazgo. Staff/postgraduate seminar, UNSW, 1987.

Rent Capital & Petty Commodity Production. Staff/postgraduate seminar, UNSW, 1987.

Medical Idioms As Legitimate Responses to Family Planning. Third International Philippine Studies Conference, Manila, July 1989.

Surigao By-Passed. Conference on Mindanao, ANU, 1989.

Medical Idioms As Legitimate Responses to Family Planning. Seminar Program, ANU. 1990.

Church, Religion & Fertility in the Philippines. 4th Int'l Philippine Studies Conf, ANU, 1992.

Church, Religion & Fertility in the Philippines: Values, Action & Development. ASAA 9th Biennial Conference, Armidale, July 1992.

Religion, Church, Fertility & Development. Anthropological Society Conference, Melb. 1993.

The Discourse of Family Planning & Nationalism in the Philippines. PSAA/PSC Seminar Series, RSPAS, ANU. Sept. 13, 1995.

Are They Serious ? The Discourse of Family Planning and Nationalism. 3rd International European Philippine Conference, France. April 1997.

Illness & Medical Resort in Surigao, JCU/PSAA Centennial Conference. July 11-13 1998.

Does Family Planning Mean being a "Proper" Citizen in the Philippines? 6th International Philippine Studies Conference, July 10-14, 2000. Manila.

Transgendering Sexuality in the Philippines. 7th International Philippine Studies Conference, Leiden. June, 2004.

Mathews, P. W. GAS: GROUPS, ASSESSMENT, SALVATION. Teaching Methods (of English) in Taiwan. 1st Annual English Conference, Applied English Dept., Tung Nan Institute of Technology, Taiwan, June 17, 2005.

Mathews, P. W. Double-Speak as Discourse. International Symposium, "Applied English Education: Trends, Issues and Interconnections", March 9 2007, I-Shou University, Taiwan.

Mathews, P. W. Return to Eden: Education in Taiwan. I-Shou University English Dept's Seminars. Inaugural presentation, October 2006. Taiwan.

Mathews, P. W. Noli me Tangere: When Is Prostitution Not Prostitution. 10th Women in Asia Conference, ANU, Canberra. July 2010.

Mathews, P. W. Noli me Tangere: When Is Prostitution Not Prostitution. Sociology Seminar, ANU, Canberra. October 2010.

Mathews, P. W. Report on time use amongst chronic illness sufferers, Menzies Institute of Health and Policy, University of Sydney. 16 August 2011.

Mathews, P. W. Adult/Asian Cam Models (ACMs) in the Philippines: Health Implications and Advocacy. 12th Social Research Conference on HIV, Hepatitis & Related Diseases (HHARD), "Silence & Articulation". National Centre in HIV Social Research, UNSW, April 12-13, 2012.

Invited Presentations

Guest speech, Rotary Club/Surigao Heritage Centre, 2000.

Discussant, 1st Annual English Conference, Applied English Dept., Tung Nan Institute of Technology, Taiwan, June 17, 2005.

Works of fiction

Mathews, P. W. My First Riddles. Hamlyn: Sydney. 1974. 45pp.

Mathews, P. W. My Second Book of Riddles. Hamlyn: Sydney. 1975. 45pp.

Mathews, P. W. Collected Poems. Stockwell: London. 1976. 24pp.

Book & Film Reviews

Beyond Marxism. (Allen & Patton, eds). Mankind, 14(2): 130-131. 1983.

Cruz-na-Ligas. (Lagmay). Philippine Studies, 35(1): 134-135. 1987.

Fertility and Kinship in the Philippines. (Yu & Liu). Philippine Studies, 35(1): 130-133. 1987.

Urbanization & Migration in ASEAN Development. (Hauser, ed). Philippine Studies, Vol. 35. Pp. 538-540. 1987.

Open Cut. (C. Williams). Mankind, 17(1): 63-64. 1987.

ASEAN-U.S. Economic Relations: An Overview. (Kintanar Jnr. and Loong-Hoe, eds). Philippine Studies, 36(2): 264. 1988.

Babaylanism in Negros: 1896-1907. (Cullamar). Journal of Contemporary Asia, 22(4): 565-568. 1992.

Babaylanism in Negros: 1896-1907. (Cullamar). The Review, 13(1): 113-114. 1989. (Asia Studies Association of Australia).

Angry Days in Mindanao. (Schreurs). Journal of Contemporary Asia, 22(4): 568-572. 1992.

The Emerging Gospel. (Torres & Fabella, eds). Landas. 1989.

Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. 3rd Ed. (Haralambos).

Perspectives in Sociology. 3rd Ed. (Cuff, Sharrock & Francis).

In Praise of Sociology. (Marshall).

Dimensions of Australian Society. (Graetz and McAllister).

Every Student's Guide to Sociology. (Kellehear).

ANZJS, 27(3): 437-438. 1991.

Socio-Economic Determinants of Health Systems in India. (Kaifi). Journal of Contemporary Asia, 23(2): 278-280. 1993.

Phenomena & their Interpretation. (Bulatao). J of Contemporary Asia, 23(4): 570-575. 1993.

Remittances and Returnees. (Pertierra). Journal of Contemporary Asia, 23(4): 570-575. 1993.

The State, Economic Transformation and Political Change in the Philippines. (Doronilla). Journal of Contemporary Asia. 24(2): 238-240. 1994.

Artisans and Entrepreneurs in the Rural Philippines. (Rutten). Philippine Studies, 42(1): 124-28. 1994.

Methodology for Population Studies and Development. (Mahadevan & Krishnan). J of Contemporary Asia, 24(2): 240-241. 1994.

Politics and Society in the Third World. (Kamrava). Journal of Contemporary Asia, 25(1), 1995.

The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. (Putzel). Pilipinas #25, 1995. Pp. 105-107.

The Process of Development of Societies. (Alexander). Journal of Contemporary Asia, 1995.

Environmental Politics, (Krishna). J Contemporary Asia. 1996.

TXT-ING Selves, (Pertierra). Pilipinas, #40, 2003. Pp. 73-74.

Other outputs

Bayot ! A 20 minute edited video compilation of (July 2000) fieldwork data on transgenders in Surigao. (Non-peer reviewed).

Introduction, in Surigao Across the Years, by J. Almeda. 2000. Surigao Heritage Centre. Philippines.

Mathews, P. W. "A System Tailor-made for Cheats", The Australian, Sept. 5. 2007. P. 44.

Mathews, P. W. "Staff Shortages are of their Own Making", Letter to the Editor, The Australian, October 14, 2009. P. 26.

Editorship of scholarly journals

Mathews, P. W. & Ugarte, E. Nation-Building: The Case of the Philippines, 1896-1996, Pilipinas, special issue #27. 1996.

Mathews, P. W. Editor, Asian Studies Association of Australian e-Journal, 1998-2000.

Mathews, P. W. & Aguilar, J. Editors. Special Philippines Issue, Asian Studies Review, 1999.

Mathews, P. W. Australian Editor, Pilipinas, 1995-2002.

Mathews, P. W. Managing Editor, Pilipinas, 2002-2008.

Connect with Warrior Publishers

We really appreciate you reading this book! Here are Warrior Publisher's social media coordinates:

For more information, please visit homepage: <http://drpaulmathews.yolasite.com/>

Editing & Proofreading services available: <http://dr-mathews-editing-proofreading.yolasite.com/>

Galleon Consultancies: http://GalleonConsultancies.yolasite.com

http://warriorpublishers.yolasite.com

### Publications by Warrior Publishers

Samantha Guimoi & The Trinity of Terror

A narrative of power,

a question of power,

a challenge to power ! ...

by

Sanitee T'Chong

Beware the Ides of March ! 17 year old ABC student, Samantha Guimoi, ensnares the men in her life to further her own selfish ends. Mark was but one of a litany of men—and not the last—with whom Sam flirted, seduced, and fucked, to achieve her goals.

Samantha had the power of erotic capital, but the moral and administrative power of bitch brigades and feminine discourses were blind to its capacity. In their myopic view of the world that they fabricated, they inverted power relationships, claiming all women, especially young, nubile Asian student girleens, were victims, Asian victims, of tacit male power.

This is a tale about a monster.....but who is the monster ?

Mark's relationship with Samantha at the University of No Ideas exposes the dark secrets of the ivory-tower. His relationship with Sam is as much about sex as it is about feminism, student-teacher relationships, and the silly laws and moral discourses that govern the Academy. It is also about the media, moral terror, cyber terrorism, sexuality, and fat peeple..... amongst other fat things.

NAKED IN A NIPA HUT:

I'M A CYBERSEX GURL

and I wanna tell you my story...

By Paul Mathews

A social and anthropological insight into the lives of cybersex models and how they and others perceive their work. Based on several interviews/case studies of ACMs, and addresses issues raised in an earlier book. Also outlines the structure of the sex industry in the Philippines and where ACM-ing may fit within that. 130pp approx.

A sequel to my earlier book: Asian Cam Models: Digital Virtual Virgin Prostitutes? Presents several interviews/case studies of ACMs, in their own words; addresses issues raised in the earlier book; and outlines the structure of the sex industry in the Philippines and where ACM-ing may fit within that. 130pp aprox, with several photographs. A sociological and anthropological insight into the lives of ACMs and how they and others perceive their work, more informed and biting than the 2010 pioneering book.

Asian Cam Models: Digital Virtual Virgin Prostitutes?

By Paul Mathews

available as an E-Book thru Smashwords (http://www.Smashwords.com) and other outlets $3.99. Download the first chapter for free !

This work explores the cybersex industry in the Philippines. It pioneers research in economics, labour relations, sexuality, globalization, digital technology, Asia. It identifies the piecework relations of a new global industry; the commoditization of sexuality and emotional labour; the impact of digital technology; and injects new ideas into debates about cultural and economic globalization.

MY RIDDLE BOOK. 170 all-time riddles & jokes.

By Jhenna Umali

available as an E-Book thru Smashwords (http://www.Smashwords.com) and other outlets $1.99. Download a sample for free !

**TRAVELLERS IN TAIWAN** (旅人在臺灣 ) Reflections of Formosa ( 映像福爾摩莎)

By Shi-Hui Lee

available as an E-Book thru Smashwords (http://www.Smashwords.com) and other outlets $2.99. Download the first chapter for free !

外國人眼中的台灣到底是什麼樣子?他們到底在台灣停留多久?他們在台灣做些什麼?台灣人友善聰明嗎?台灣應該是中國的一部分嗎?

你的疑惑好奇,都可以在這本書得到解答!一起來探索那些「白色猴子們」在福爾摩莎做些什麼吧!

What do foreigners think of Taiwan? How long do they stay? What do they do? Are Taiwanese friendly & smart? Should Taiwan join China?

These questions and curiosities are answered in this study of Taiwan. Find out what these strange "white monkeys" get up to in this Formosa...

The Can: Benny & The Gems.

Ben spent 8 years in jail for a diamond heist. Set in the 1970s when petrol was leaded and cell-fones weren't even a dream, The Can was written while Ben was in jail. It tells the story of how he came to be there, following a series of crazy, hippy events that will keep you incredulous and laughing. A chance for you to know what it what it was like 40 years ago on the NSW Nimbin-vego north coast.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/598910

$1.99 ISBN: 978 13 1103 8692

Ideal for teens, especially those who never read a thing, or for remedial reading....will keep their attention. Approx 100 pages.

Ben Coady is the epitome of what Oldies call a hippy. He is five foot six inches tall, has green eyes and 18 inch long brown hair. He wears a ragged beard and moustache liberally sprinkled with colonies of lice and nits. He loves surfing the big tubes when he is not downing a cold one or blowing a joint with his equally unkempt mates. He has a knack for getting into all sorts of strife and usually comes out of it by the skin of his smoke-stained teeth.

A sequel to _The Can: Benny and the Gems_ also at Smashwords.

Complementary Therapeutics. A Selected Annotated Bibliography

by Paul Mathews & Heidi Boon

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/602281

This annotated bibliography, read as a chronology, traces a change in beliefs and attitudes, where the body, health, nature and society have come to mean different things and imply different consequences for both the individual and society. The compilation lists, in alphabetical order, and annotates dissertations, books, chapters and miscellaneous reports etc on complementary therapeutics.

$1.99 ISBN: 9781311871466

Directory of Filipinists in Australia and Bibliography

This publication lists the names, qualifications and interests of Filipinists in Australia and former residents who have made significant contributions to Philippine studies in Australia, Dissertations on the Philippines undertaken at Australian and other Universities, and an extensive bibliography of both published and unpublished material on the Philippines by those listed above.

$1.99 <https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/621655>

Net proceeds go to the

Foundation for Single Pinay Moms in College

http://foundationforsinglepinaymomsincollege.yolasite.com

In July 2014 Leanne started Teacher's College in the Philippines. As a poor, single mom of 2 beautiful girls, she had managed to finish high school and get into College.

But...

8 weeks later, she dropped out. In her own words: "I can't survive on 300 pesos a day, I don't want to be rich, i just want to give my kids what they need... Better to use my transport costs to school for them, for food, milk, diapers..."

So Leanne and her friends started this Foundation to create a Trust Fund to support single young moms in the Philippines to finish their education.

CAN YOU PLEASE HELP US ?

Either donate a few dollars through PayPal (see link below)

or send a check/MO to PO Box 827 Jamison. 2617. Canberra. Australia

OR

Buy any one of the above e-books from Warrior Publishers (through http://www.Smashwords.com), so all net proceeds go to the Foundation:

Click on the links above to take you to Smashwords where you can read about each e-book and buy one !

OR Click on http://foundationforsinglepinaymomsincollege.yolasite.com

to read about Leanne and the Foundation, and make these girls' lives just a little better. Please. Salamat.

Thanks for reading this and especially for your donation, no matter how small. Let's get Jess and her mom back on track, let's get Jess back to school, because education is a gift for life. Salamat.

How did Warrior Publishers come about ? And why ?

I have long been interested in publishing because I see it as a way of getting ideas out there in the world. Of course now social media dominates, but publishing presents lengthy, sustained arguments and narratives. It was always very difficult to get books published through mainstream publishers; so with the advent of on-line publishing, their monopoly has been broken. But there is still the stumbling block of marketing, advertising and promoting. Writers write; to shift into marketing is a whole new ball game.

So I started Warrior publishers to give myself and others opportunity to get our narratives into the world, and through the process learn about marketing.

Why the name ? Because I felt the company was like a warrior, fighting for the disadvantaged, the unknown, to be heard, and like warriors cutting new paths into new fields.

When I discovered Smashwords.com it was a godsend. I had already published one book as print-on-demand, but in retrospect it was a flop, again because of marketing, and POD seems not to have caught on widely. At least with e-books at Smashwords.com we have some control, and it's completely free. Even as a POD book, my novel sold for $27; since then it's been republished as an e-book and costs $1.99. The thing is, e-books cut out several middlemen, and you don't need a specialized e-reader because you can read e-books on your laptop.

Warrior Publishers has now published 8 e-books, both fiction and non-fiction, and has about another 5 books in the pipeline. We welcome others who want to submit a manuscript for publication as an e-book.

But, let me tell you briefly about the 7 e-books we have published, then those we plan to do, and all available at Smashwords.com

The first is **Asian Cam Models: Digital Virtual Virgin Prostitutes?**

By Paul Mathews, and only $2.99. You can even download the first chapter for free !

This work explores the cybersex or cam model industry in the Philippines. It pioneers research in economics, labour relations, sexuality, globalization, and digital technology. It identifies the piecework relations of a new global industry; the commoditization of sexuality and emotional labour; the impact of digital technology; and injects new ideas into debates about cultural and economic globalization.

This is the first book, and in fact the first piece of serious writing, on this new industry of cam models. Basically, it describes the cam model industry, how it works, the economic exploitation, not by "big men", but by bosses and the few companies that run the cam sites. It also gives some of the gurls' views about their work.

One of the key issues is that the gurls do not see cam modeling as prostitution, or even as sex work. So it raises the issue of what constitutes sex work, because in this case the gurls' work is mediated by technology.

Strange as it may seem, I was drawn into this study not by the sexual aspects, but the economics of it. When I discovered how this industry worked in terms of employment arrangements it sent me back to my undergraduate years of Marxist theory about wage labour and piece rates—that's P-I-E-C-E rates. In other words, these models are paid on the basis of "pieces" of work they produce, the number of minutes they engage clients in private shows. They do not get a wage. So in effect these girls are semi-self-employed; they have to pay 50% of income to the company who owns the site, and 25% to a boss who supplies the PC and studio. And they have to meet a quota of 100 minutes every 15 days, or they don't get paid at all.

Karl Marx wrote only 4 pages on this system of work, and simply said it was just another form of wage employment. But he missed a crucial point. It was not until 1975 that Joseph Stiglitz mentioned in passing that what piece rates do is put the responsibility and risk of production on to the worker at the point of production. This is a profound statement, and to understand why, and how this economic exploitation works, well, you will have to read the sequel to this book.

But let me finish by asking why is piece-rates such an important issue? Simply because, piece-rates is inherently exploitative; and, apart from cam gurls, there is an increasing number of people who work on a piece-rate basis, and they don't realize it, or the implications. Taxi drivers, real estate agents, telemarketers, and even doctors and now lawyers can and do work on a piece rate basis...If they don't win the case, they don't get paid....

Having written that book, I the went on to write **Naked in a Nipa Hut: I'm a Cybersex Gurl and I wanna tell you my story...**

This is sequel to Asian Cam Models. It's a sociological and anthropological insight into the lives of cybersex models and how they and others perceive their work. It is based on several case studies of ACMs, and addresses issues raised in the earlier book. It also outlines the structure of the sex industry in the Philippines.

Now the story gets complicated.... In brief, I was asked by an Israeli TV crew to help them make a documentary on cam girls in the Philippines, to tell their stories. I did help them, only to find out that their real intention was to show how the girls were exploited in order to expose a certain Mr. Big who ran one of the sites. Fortunately, none of the interviewed girls said they felt exploited, but found ACM-ing a convenient job. But I was so pissed of by the Israeli's deceit that I decided to write this second book based on more extensive interviews, in order to tell the stories of the girls' lives and work.

As I was writing this book I also submitted a paper to the Feminist Economics Journal. But it was reviewed by mostly economists, who we all know lead sheltered lives. Among the several things they wanted addressed was where did ACM-ing fit within the sex industry of the Philippines, and if any of these sex workers experience occupational mobility. Well, I did say they were economists.

To address their needs, I realized that no one had ever written about the sex industry in the Philippines, that is, its structure. So this book now contains the only, but by no means definitive, description of the sex work structure in that country.

Two other non-fiction books that Warrior Publishers have produced are **TRAVELLERS IN TAIWAN Reflections of Formosa** by Kitty Lee and myself, in both English and Chinese, and

Complementary Therapeutics: A Selected Annotated Bibliography.

The Taiwan book is a satirical but serious critique of Taiwanese society and culture across a number of areas and issues, such as What do foreigners think of Taiwan? How long do they stay? What do they do? Are Taiwanese friendly & smart? Should Taiwan join China? Etc.

And the cartoons in the book are awesome.

**The book on complementary medicine** is simply a reference book for those interested in research and literature on the topic. But underlying this bibliography is that the compilation treats "alternative" therapies both as a spearhead and as a reflection of widespread changes in attitudes—and of resistance to such changes. "Alternative" therapies seem to be a sort of avant-garde for new ideas about health and the body, as well as symptomatic of much wider societal changes.

So, this annotated bibliography, read as a chronology, traces a change in beliefs and attitudes, where the body, health, nature and society have come to mean different things and imply different consequences for both the individual and society.

The compilation lists and annotates dissertations, books, chapters and miscellaneous reports etc on complementary therapeutics. By no means is the book exhaustive, but a starting point.

Turning to fictional works, first and foremost is **Samantha Guimoi and the Trinity of Terror,** by Trinitee T'Chong

This is NOT a horror book, but the consequences and actions are horrible. It's full of twists and turns.... It's an awesome story, about women, feminism, sex, student-teacher relationships, education, cyber-terror, power, etc, available as an E-Book through Smashwords.com or Print-on-Demand paperback.

It's 600 pages deal with student-teacher sexual relationships and the woeful conditions of and corruption in the education system, feminist moralizing, and fat people, based on possibly a true story. Good style, funni and scathing.

If you have read Helen Garner's The First Stone, then u will need to read this....just to find out what the trinity and the terror are.

The second fictional book is **The Can: Benny & The Gems.**

Ben spent 8 years in jail for a diamond heist. Set in the 1970s when petrol was leaded and cell-fones weren't even a dream, The Can was written while Ben was in jail. It tells the story of how he came to be there, following a series of crazy, hippy events that will keep you incredulous and laughing. For a paltry $1.99 it's a chance for you to know what it what it was like 40 years ago on the Nimbin-vego north coast.

The sequel to this, **Daze of Our Lives** , continues with Ben's travels and exploits after he wins the lotto.

These two books are ideal for teens, especially those who never read a thing, or for remedial reading.

But the background to these books is also fascinating.

Bruce Roberts and his mother were found guilty in 1976 of murdering Bruce's father. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment. Evidence showed the brutal treatment by Eric Roberts towards his family. A public campaign to free both mother and son was waged to secure a fairer sentence by regarding the killing as justifiable manslaughter. After a few years both were released on licence. Bruce's mother later died in a house fire caused by her smoking in bed. Bruce also lost his older brother to leukemia, and his younger brother lost a leg in a bike accident.

What happened to Bruce is obscure; there are indications that he breached the conditions of his parole and was sent back to jail for a time, or that he moved to Western Australia. I met Bruce when he was in jail in the 1970s; he gave these books, both written by Bruce while he was in jail, to be published. Now, some 35 years later, with changes in technology allowing e-publications, that wish has been fulfilled.

The final book is **MY RIDDLE BOOK. 170 all-time riddles & jokes** for kids 5 and up, fully illustrated, by Jhenna Umali.

It's only 99 cents. Keep your kids occupied on a long flight !

Now, an important part of Warrior Publishers is that a proportion of net sales go to the **Foundation for Single Pinay Moms in College.**

This foundation was set up because in my research I encountered many single Filipina moms who had been abandoned by their partner when they became pregnant. One way to get out of their cycle of poverty is to get educated, but they can't afford it.

To find out more about this and how you can help with even a small donation, or by purchasing a book, visit Warrior Publishers' website at warriorpublishers.yolasite.com

Or buy any of our books and the contact details are in them.

What are the future plans for Warrior Publishers ?

We plan several books in the coming 6 months:

First is a study of EFL and education in Taiwan, which examines through case studies the disjunction between policy and practice, and contains some interesting and satirical anecdotes.

Next is a book on male prostitution in Sydney, and also one on the Philippines.

There is also a book on Sydney taxis, Everything You always wanted to know about taxis but the driver wouldn't tell you.

Then there may be a small book on the role of family planning in the concept of nationalism, or what I call being a proper citizen, or biological citizenship.

So, Warrior Publishers seeks to publish different, hopefully pioneering works across a range of fields, or any books of quality that give writers a chance to express themselves, fiction and non-fiction. Now that e-books are a reality—and I am convert—this is possible with little or no cost. So we welcome the submission of manuscripts for e-book publication.

Thanks for your interest, and don't forget to visit Warrior Publishers' web site or Smashwords.com.

END

