The 14^th of December can never be forgotten in Australia’s history. Indeed, it should never be forgotten and likely won’t be anytime soon. The road to healing from the Bondi massacre will be fraught with pain. These murders will leave scars so indelible on the national psyche that all of its consequences have yet to fully eventuate. It will be a point of reference to how the Australian community is shaped by forces outside its control and how it shapes itself in response; history will judge this flashpoint.

In the wake of the attack, however, I had a peculiar episode with a close friend of mine. Two days after the incident, A* forwarded me a rather interesting screenshot – it was an image purportedly calling on Australia to participate in a ‘Wog/Middle Eastern Bashing Day’ on the 27^th of December at Cronulla Beach (Figure 1). “Don’t leave the house on the 27^th if you can” they said after, imploring me to not leave the safety of my own home on this particular day.

It seemed like such an innocuous request that I laughed it off and said I wouldn’t want to be in Cronulla anyway. I was also slightly bemused at their concern for my wellbeing, as if I couldn’t take care of myself, and I had never seen this type of message from them before (granted, they said this in extremely exceptional circumstances from the resultant Bondi). But the more I thought back on it, the more I realised there were some uncomfortable questions at its heart.

Why would they feel the need to single me out for it? Had other friends of theirs received this same image with the same instructions? Why not warn everyone on their own social channels? We are friends but what responsibility for my own safety could they possibly have which they, presumably, reasoned I couldn’t capably exercise myself? Why would they give any credence to such a publicly aggravating claim? And why would they feel the need to instruct me not go out rather than simply ask me? They could’ve framed the idea in a variety of ways: they could’ve innocently asked what plans I had for that Saturday or outright elaborated their reasonings for telling me not to go out. But no, instead their words were concise, straightforward and grammatically imperative – the function of a verb to indicate a command or request.

There is a question, then, of culpability; what can they be blamed for? Telling me to not go out has already occurred so their intention and the context from which they did this needs to be evaluated. I’m willing to concede that no harm was intended. Their primary reason for our brief texts was out of a genuine concern for my safety, however negligent it seems of evoking unintended implications. So we’re left with context and what I imagine to be an underlying reason for why they texted me: they believed they had the power to do so. Their words suddenly become eerily custodial, like they watch over me as a benevolent figure who knows better. Therefore, there is an uncomfortable subtext revealed when examining their words (and a salient point I’ve yet to reveal): they are a white person demanding a non-white person to do as they’re told when both individuals are on a supposedly equal footing in Australia. Consciously or otherwise, A* is demonstrating their participation in a system which sanctions and enables their intentions to intervene on my behalf, regardless of the motivations to do so. Their example is one of many and part of a larger, systemic problem surrounding race and culture in Australia.

There are historical and contemporary precedents for this category of behaviour. White Australia as official government policy lasted for almost seven decades since the country’s federation, deliberately shaping future demographics to turn away non-white peoples and preserve the Anglo-Celtic identity. Even before then, British colonial authorities lorded over the Indigenous population, seizing land, culture, people and so much more in the name of glorious expansion of a fathomless empire. Nowadays, the sentiment is succinctly expressed in four short words, commonly seen on bumper stickers – “F*ck off, we’re full”. Australia has been manufactured on the fantasy that white people live above non-white people and deserve to have a say in their lives. What should otherwise be a farcical idea is instead a horrific social reality still being lived by many considered non-white in Australia today. The foundation of superior belief is still here – we live and breathe in a white society – only the rhetoric and modality have changed over time.

Likewise with this fantasy, Australia is no stranger to the call to ‘wog bash’. A little over 20 years ago, thousands of white Australians gathered in the streets of Cronulla with the express purpose of denigrating and assaulting anyone they perceived as Middle Eastern. Sensationalist commercial media and widespread text messaging among the participants fuelled the conflagration. Even the infamous shock jock – Alan Jones – threw his hat into the ring, alluding to the equally infamous Skaf brothers as he remarked how “Anglo-Saxon kids” weren’t the type to commit rape or cause public disturbance like Middle Eastern people would. He was later censured for publicly encouraging violence but the damage had already been done.  

What was the response? Former prime minister John Howard, one of the most ardent critics of multiculturalism, called it “a law and order issue”. It is strange to think how the leader of a multicultural nation could get away with downplaying the obvious racial and cultural implications of Cronulla. Stranger yet is the fact that Cronulla is only considered a race riot and not a genuine terrorist attack. It has all the hallmarks of terrorism after all: the rioters aimed to advance the cause of White Australia; they did so by intimidating sections of the public; and it resulted in serious harm and endangerment to people.

In lieu of these historical considerations, the real question now is ‘where to from here’? Bondi and Cronulla were volatile cocktails of international tensions erupting violently to the surface in a domestic space which also revealed the limits of multiculturalism. It failed in theory and in practice within both spaces. But that’s not to say the dream of multiculturalism is dead or dying or unfeasible in Australia.

What should have been learnt at Cronulla all those years ago is being revisited at Bondi: multiculturalism is not a given and should never be taken for granted. It must be worked on constantly by those who believe in it with consistent, real action meant to achieve its ideals. The Albanese government has already responded by toughening legislation against hate crimes and firearms, the prime minister solemnly remarking how the Bondi terrorists had “hate in their hearts, but they had guns in their hands”. Only time will tell what will come of this particular response but the drive towards achieving multiculturalism shouldn’t stop there nor should it solely be the responsibility of the executive and legislative arms of government. Australia suffers from chronic racial and cultural issues, started centuries ago from the moment Captain Cook visited the continent, and major societal reforms are needed to merely address these issues.

Multiculturalism only works if everyone’s wholeheartedly onboard. Not 80% of society, not 90%, not even 99.99%. Everyone must support it. Everyone must break free of the complacency that so often wraps ideals into historicist complacency – of being inactive because the status quo is fine and all is well. Only then can the fantasy of White Australia be dispelled and friends of all colours and stripes look out for each other without seeming racially paternalistic.

*Name and gender have been anonymised to respect privacy