I had the displeasure this morning of reading an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled “The coming storm”, in which “IT specialist” Gary Ellett bemoans the threat “Chindia” displays to Australia. Quoted, for purposes of critical review, is the first paragraph of the article:
The globalisation juggernaut will be catastrophic for the island continent of Australia. While our eyes are turned to events in the Middle East, an even more pernicious terror has stealthily found its way into Australia. We do not see any news headlines about it, but gradually over the last three years, thousands of Australians have lost their livelihoods to the hordes from Chindia, through outsourcing services to offshore companies.
I think I re-read that paragraph three times before finally deciding that it wasn’t being farcical or satirical, and that the writer was in fact serious. I’m ethnically not part of the group that Ellett so blithely and flippantly attacks, but, as one who belongs to the population he claims to represent, I’m insulted.
Perhaps the content is valid — offshoring of jobs results in diminishing employment opportunities for Australians. Or not. Either way, the phrasing of the last sentence of that first paragraph is inappropriate at best, and overtly racist at worst; overwhelmingly reminiscent of cries against the “Yellow Peril” from earlier in our country’s history. I can’t get over the line “hordes from Chindia”, myself. Both the term “hordes” and its negative connotations (likening the population of this “Chindia” to a mob whose purpose is to overrun Australian employment), as well as the term “Chindia” — which I’d personally never heard before, but is apparently accepted terminology — still, a quick Google revealed it’s a generic noun used to describe Asiatic nations (of which, debatably, Australia should count itself one) — this isn’t shocking in itself, but viewed in the context of Ellett’s message is perhaps a little too nationalistic… one may argue to the point of racism. And I do.
The irony of all this is brought out well in another article by The Economist, in which both China and India are described as having a “tendency towards economic isolationism” and “proud […] self-sufficiency”… and yet we complain of (what is portrayed as) their active desire to steal our domestic industry away from us, when, in reality, people elect to use their services and industry as opposed to employing local sources in attempted exploitation of them (or so Ellett would have us believe in a somewhat twisted way in which racist nationalism becomes the dominant tone of the piece)… but this “exploitation” is actually to mutual benefit, as illustrated in an article linked to from the original piece (but apparently not read, or at least ignored, by Ellett).
This is, afterall, a “pernicious terror” with which our country is threatened. More so than militarism, seemingly. “While our eyes are turned to events in the Middle East, an even more pernicious terror has stealthily found its way into Australia.” Notably, not that an even more pernicious terror has developed in Australia, in the form of our own socially irresponsible management (although, to be fair, Ellett alludes to this at a later point in the piece), or that Australia is embracing globalisation in the form of its own international agenda and policies, including “free” trade agreements with other nations perhaps not so interested in “free” trade as unilateral trade with a side dish of pretenses at diplomatic niceties. But I digress.
It has the potential to see the nation evolve from its Third World poverty and skip straight into the information and technology age. It is truly one of the great achievements of history, and one from which we can all learn.
It’s just “the nation”, now: this Chindia, in the mind of Ellett, truely is the one foreign entity. From a nationalistic perspective, perhaps it is… but surely, no one in a developed, good, Western nation would seriously consider matters that way anymore — not since the early twentieth century! Everything old is new again: including, it would seem, this “truly […] great achievement” in which developing Asian nations (I refuse to use the term “Chindia”) may circumvent the process of progression from proverty to prosperity. On that note, I indicate Ellett’s choice of words — he refers to “evolution” from Third World poverty — I needn’t elaborate on possible interpretations of that.
It also disregards the need for development of infrastructure which comes as a side effect of the industrialisation process, something which some citizens of post-industrial Western society apparently take for granted. There is, and always will be, a process which needs to occur to “evolve” (cringe) from a state of poverty. Infrastructure does not instantly appear, neither does technology, and neither do adequately trained educators and users of this technology, neccessary for sustainable industry (which is itself obviously requisite for the alleviation of poverty in an urban society).
The problem with Ellett’s approach is it looks to globalisation without any real comprehension of what the “global” part of that word means. Protectionism, nationalism, and the notion of requisite self-preservation at a “national” level in this context is somewhat antiquated: globalisation is about the breaking down of barriers such that the skills and abilities of the individual may be realised regardless as to physical circumstance… even when that individual is a “Chindian”.
