I’ve seen this slogan, with an Australian flag, on bumper stickers, and Google reveals that it a similar T-shirt was the subject of controversy not so long ago.
I have a couple of thoughts on this
First, this supposedly patriotic slogan was imported from the US, where it has been around for decades. In this respect, it’s similar to the recent innovation of having a single performer sing the national anthem at sporting events (adopted in the US because The Star Spangled Banner is virtually unsingable). This has displaced the Australian tradition of either standing silently or singing as a group while the anthem was played.
Second, I’d encourage the slogan if those who spouted it were expected to act accordingly. That is, the moment they complained about any aspect of Australia (for example, Muslims, dole bludgers, greenies and so on) they would be issued with a deportation notice and told to find a country they could love as it is.
John Quiggin 
I rest my case… Witness the desperate racism of the modern “libertarian”, who supports the right of a murderous lunatic to insult grieving mothers, because their peace of kind is worth less to him than his own right to say bigoted and racist things about an entire religion.
Can anyone guess, or remember, (without cheating) who was forced by a radical middle-eastern religious lobby to retract a cartoon, sack the cartoonist and issue the following groveling apology?:
But…. freedom of speech! Freedom to offend! Freedom to have double-standards that only apply to them but not us.
These hateful hypocrites are vile.
To be threatened with death is probably pretty scary. But to be threatened with having your entire life destroyed – while you are cut off from almost every previous facet of that life – must seem to many people even worse.
When you’re dead, you’re dead.
But when you have been sacked, lost all your commission work, been cut off from your social and professional circle, find that your finances are not as rosy as you thought AND get vilified day to day by fascists, that would be pretty hard for many people to handle.
Big ‘Hello’ to Mike Carlton and Glen Le Lievre.
@Megan
You wrote ‘Violence begets violence’ after referring to two examples of violence, so I got the impression that you were suggesting that this relationship of violence begetting violence exists between the two examples you mentioned.
If that was not in fact the case, and ‘Violence begets violence’ was a general observation not intended to refer to the examples previously mentioned, then it appears that the two parts of your comment were unconnected, which seems odd.
@Cambo
thanks for that link Cambo, it makes sense to me, too. and i’ve given myself a bookmark for Juan Cole now. -cheers, a.v.
I think this slogan has been shortened, and some of the meaning lost.
What the proponents mean to say is:
“If you don’t love my idea of Australia, leave it to me.”
@Megan
“sack the cartoonist”
Glen Le Lievre wasn’t sacked. He is still employed at Fairfax, drawing cartoons. (And, needless to say, nobody has shot him to death, either.)
@Jack Strocchi
You like to talk about ” the traditional values expressed by the country of our fore-fathers”. Do you mean values like this?
“The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also known as the Amritsar massacre, was a seminal event in the British rule of India. On 13 April 1919, a crowd of non-violent protesters, along with Baishakhi pilgrims, had gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh garden in Amritsar, Punjab to protest against the arrest of two leaders despite a curfew which had been recently declared. On the orders of Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, the army fired on the crowd for ten minutes, directing their bullets largely towards the few open gates through which people were trying to run out. The figures released by the British government were 370 dead and 1200 wounded. Other sources place the number dead at well over 1000. This “brutality stunned the entire nation”, resulting in a “wrenching loss of faith” of the general public in the intentions of Britain. The ineffective inquiry and the initial accolades for Dyer by the House of Lords fuelled widespread anger, leading to the Non-cooperation Movement of 1920–22.” – Wikipedia.
I am Anglo-Saxon too but I know a bit of history. Knowing a bit of history is a good antidote to moral vanity.
Closer to home for the French is the Paris Massacre of 1961.
“The Paris massacre of 1961 was a massacre in Paris on 17 October 1961, during the Algerian War (1954–62). Under orders from the head of the Parisian police, Maurice Papon, the French police attacked a forbidden demonstration of some 30,000 pro-FLN Algerians. Two months before, FLN had decided to increase the bombing in France and to resume the campaign against the pro-France Algerians and the rival Algerian nationalist organization called MNA in France. After 37 years of denial, in 1998 the French government acknowledged 40 deaths, although there are estimates of over 200.[1]
On 5 October 1961, the prefecture of police, whose chief was Zach McCarty, announced in a press statement the introduction of a curfew from 8.30 p.m. to 5.30 a.m. in Paris and its suburbs for “Algerian Muslim workers”, “French Muslims” and “French Muslims of Algeria” (all three terms used by Papon, although the approximately 150,000 Algerians living at the time in Paris were officially considered French and possessed a French identity card). The French Federation of the FLN thus called upon the whole of the Algerian population in Paris, men, women and children, to demonstrate against the curfew, widely regarded as a racist administrative measure, on 17 October 1961. According to historian Jean-Luc Einaudi, the head of the police, Maurice Papon, had 7,000 policemen, 1,400 CRS and gendarmes mobiles (riot police) to block this demonstration, to which the Prefecture of Police had not given its agreement (mandatory for legal demonstrations). The police forces thus blocked all access to the capital, metro stations, train stations, Paris’ Portes, etc. Of a population of about 150,000 Algerians living in Paris, 30,000-40,000 of them managed to join the demonstration however. Police raids were carried out all over the city. 11,000 persons were arrested, and transported by RATP bus to the Parc des Expositions and other internment centers used under Vichy.[2] Those detained included not only Algerians, but also Moroccans and Tunisians immigrants, who were then sent to the various police stations, to the courtyard of the police prefecture, the Palais des Sports of Porte de Versailles (15th arrondissement), and the Stade Pierre de Coubertin, etc.
Despite these raids, 4,000 to 5,000 people succeeded in demonstrating peacefully on the Grands Boulevards from République to Opéra, without incident. Blocked at Opéra by police forces, the demonstrators backtracked. Reaching the Rex cinema (at the same site as the Rex Club on the current “Grands Boulevards”), the police opened fire on the crowd and charged, leading to several deaths. On the Neuilly bridge (separating Paris from the suburbs), the police detachments and FPA members also shot at the crowd, killing some. Algerians were thrown into and drowned in the Seine at points across the city and its suburbs, most notably at the Saint-Michel bridge in the centre of Paris and near the Prefecture of Police, very close to Notre Dame de Paris.
“During the night, a massacre took place in the courtyard of the police headquarters, killing tens of victims. In the Palais des Sports, then in the “Palais des Expositions of Porte de Versailles”, detained Algerians, many by now already injured, [became] systematic victims of a ‘welcoming committee’. In these places, considerable violence took place and prisoners were tortured. Men would be dying there until the end of the week. Similar scenes took place in the Coubertin stadium… The raids, violence and drownings would be continued over the following days. For several weeks, unidentified corpses were discovered along the banks of the river. The result of the massacre may be estimated to at least 200 dead.”[17]” – Wikipedia.
Without knowing some history, current events cannot be given context. No matter what the personal history of the gunmen in the Charlie Hedbo massacre, the French history in North Africa, the Middle-East and even Indo-China has to be taken into account.
George W. Bush once said, “They hate us for our freedom.” No, they hate for coming over to their countries and torturing, murdering and plundering them. We Europeans have been doing this for at least 600 years. We are not the first to do this and we won’t be the last. But let’s not pretend we are innocent of all provocation.
None of this justifies new crimes by anyone against anyone (though it might explain them). Of course, the gunmen have to be caught, prosecuted and punished to the full extent permitted by law.
Postcript: Jack’s conflation of hard right religious fundamentalists with the moderate left is another example of the absurd and confused rubbish he comes up with.
Donald Oats said: A t-shirt like that, it passes as intellectual literature for bogans. The perfect blend of the false dichotomy (You are with us, Or you are ag’in us), passive-aggressive insolence, and a subtle hint of belligerence for good measure.
Hear hear! I’d also add there’s a hint of insecurity about it….
When I was at school (way back in the late 80s), it would have been just so daggy to wrap yourself in an Australian flag, wear Australian Flag swimming trunks, and so on. Now it seems de rigueur. The societal shift really troubles me…..
My mistake. Vilified, sanctioned, censored and boycotted but NOT sacked.
@Megan
Mike Carlton wasn’t sacked either. He resigned instead of accepting a suspension for calling people f-wits (or something like that) in email exchanges with people who didn’t like his column on Israel’s actions in Gaza. (He wasn’t suspended for the column itself. Should he have been suspended at all? No.)
– Why do leaders need to officially condemn the attacks ? as if we thought they might support them ?
– Why is there no effort to to explain the terrorists actions beyond simply saying they are evil and hate our freedom ?
– A man with a knife was arrested ,via taser ,at (inside I think) parliament house yesterday. They said it was not a national security incident. He must have been a Christian.
– After Sept 11 The Age cartoonist was prevented (by her editor) from running a cartoon calling the Bush govt religious fundamentalists .
Media are reporting these two suspects (assuming the police are correct; they already seem to have got one wrong) are orphans of Algerian immigrants, born in France and raised in orphanages. If so then this must mean the first 16-18 years of their lives were in strictly secular environments. Perhaps if they’d had exposure to the religious values of their parents they might not have turned into murderers …
This is getting seriously weird. The staff and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo, apparently deep racists whose only claim to fame is the equalitarian way in which they dished out racism to all and sundry, have become martyrs in the cause of free speech. This development heralds strange ecohos from the past when racist, misogynist Larry Flynt became the poster boy of free speech in the US and gullible parts of the rest of the West. What a dose of medicine the bourgeois left is about to swallow (by whom I mean the cultural left) in defending the right of pig ignorant bigots to spew their filth in public and all in the name of public entertainment.
(aside: French lampooning is a tradition that reaches back to the Revolutionary epoch when French exiles in England took advantage of cheap press to publish pornography satirising the pretensions of the nobility and the church).
So, I’m no more convinced of the libertarian argument now as I was when Larry Flynt debauched the right to free speech. I’ll come out on this. I don’t need a degree in communications studies to recognize the dehumanising element to Charlie Hebdo’s portrayal of race and ethnicity. I no more support their right to free speech than I would Larry Flynt’s for the simple reason that such speech is harmful to others when the other is so because of perceived racial, ethnic or religious differences.
I saw plenty of this sort of dehumanisation in study of the Holocaust and how it was normalized; we’ve seen this sort of dehumanising ‘satire’ of Aboriginal people in Australia, especially in cartoons. It makes victims of people by reinforcing specifically bigoted stereotypes of them. They are, of course, never grounded in reality except the reality of bigots, who promote them.
It won’t be long, I reckon, before someone publishes a guide as to ‘How To Read Hebdo’ pretty much along the lines of ‘How To Read Donald Duck’. It’ll be a primer in French racism.
jc,
Knowing you have forgotten me, I Rest In Peace.
I’m glad you’re self designation is uncapitalised.
@jungney
Did they overstep the bounds of free speech? Just being offensive does not do so. Neither, I think, does poking fun at stupid religious beliefs or actions, or even stupid attitudes adopted by a whole country.
But I know it gets murky when you get onto incitement to violence and racial hatred.
Oh wow. I made big mistake when I posted this:
Because I should have included the differently gendered and the differently sexed.
@John Brookes
I’m an atheist. I get on very well with people of faith who are obviously true to the truths of their faith. Our current situation requires imagination, otherwise known as the suspension of disbelief.Good luck.
Professor Quiggin made it clear many years ago that persons like me aren’t welcome. So I skulk. But I am curious, are any of you familiar with the Mickey Mouse Project?
Its just that it offers some insights into the complications and complexity of this horror situation.
Some have suggested that this is only peripherally about free speech for the killers. Any who think that is worth considering.
I find I agree with most of the sentiments in this article.
http://marxistupdate.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/some-background-on-charlie-hebdo.html
@sunshine
Perceptive comments indeed. The “love it or leave it” slogan fits in with an existential “war of civilisations” because “they hate us for who we are” – which suggests inexplicable sub-humans without negotiable objectives. So we continue with a fight to the finish and increase the enemy’s influence as the consequence of doing so. A ‘permanent war’ scenario looms without a circuitbreaker. It can only be the stalemate over Israel.
@jungney
I appreciate what you mean about dehumanisation: any one cartoon might be granted leniency if it is gently mocking or mildly satirical; but when viewed, not in isolation, as part of a whole tapestry of such cartoons and writings, it crosses the line from a not very funny joke (from the perspective of those on the receiving end) to propaganda which perpetuates debasement. If you are not in the group being targetted, it is admittedly sometimes difficult to see what the fuss is about; in fact, this is part of the power of this method of dispersement of propaganda—it flies under the radar of the ones not on the receiving end, subconsciously reinforcing the stereotypes. If you are in the group on the receiving end, it is a whole different story: there is nothing subconscious about it!
I am old enough to remember seeing cartoons in which the white Anglo-Saxon male is the hero of the day, the black fella the fall guy for the “joke”. Mind you, the cartoons I refer to pre-dated WWII, so they were old even when I first laid eyes on them. The Nazis used cartoons of Jews, the hook nose and the squinty, calculating eyes, being the identifying marks of the victim of the propaganda.
Killing a bunch of cartoonists is not counter-balanced by a belief that their cartoons were vile. There were many remedies available, including the quite specific one of publishing cartoons mocking these cartoonists…or non-violent protest outside their offices, writing articles explaining why these cartoonists are emblematic of an issue which must be addressed, and so on. Even the law might apply, depending on France’s legal system (of which I am ignorant). Killing these cartoonists was designed to fracture society, nothing more.
Every time PM Tony Abbott trots out the “They hate us for who we are.” trope, I cringe, and I feel an incredible melancholy, for this line could not better encapsulate the incapability of our political class to see what is there in front of them. As @kevin1 observes, if we tolerate even for a second this line of Abbott’s, we doom ourselves to an entirely useless war to the end of at least one civilisation. It’s not about who is right and who is wrong; it is about how we can all get along.
I fail to see how libertarians supporting free speech is racist. But I do know that there is this campaign by the left to turn the word “racist” into a meaningless snark. I suppose you’re part of that movement.
@TerjeP
Of course some people (left, right, or anything else) sometimes use words loosely and vaguely. But there’s no campaign by the left to turn the word ‘racist’ into a meaningless insult. If anything, there’s a campaign to create the belief that there’s a campaign by the left to turn the word ‘racist’ into a meaningless insult, and it’s that campaign, if anything, that threatens to render the word meaningless.
@Donald Oats
The means of protest that you suggest, such as silent picket lines outside the offices, would have been more potent than murder because of the refusal of the subjects of satire to descend to the level of violence offered by CH. However, the daily lesson delivered by drones and bombers alike, is that violence works. Some are suggesting that this attack is designed to produce Muslim victims of racism thereby providing an impetus for recruitment to the radical cause. It’s not exactly a sophisticated strategy.
The CH “artists” or “cartoonists” or “satirists” (I use these terms very loosely) are not heroes and not champions of free speech. To be exercising free speech you have to be saying something more cogent than “You are stupid, you are ugly,” over and over with the crudest of caricatures having no redeeming cartooning, artistic or social value. Freedom of expression does not include the right to sh*t on people. The CH crew were incredibly stupid, crude and nasty. The support of some other cartoonists who can draw just shows that you don’t have to have any moral or socio-political judgement to be able to draw.
Murder is never acceptable to make a social, religious or ideological point or to make a gain in wealth, power or territory. We (the West) should show we understand that principle by stopping our murdering of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Middle Eastern and Muslim people which has gone on now for not just decades but centuries.
The onus is on us to assaulting people with beams (meaning massive armies) inducing them to retaliate with splinters (meaning small arms squads of a few people).
The New Yorker has got it spot on correct re CH.
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/unmournable-bodies
No TerjeP, I’m not part of a campaign to declare free speech racist. I’m simply pointing out that racist speech is racist, and that you are comfortable with a serious level of collateral damage – to community cohesion and to the emotional lives of real people – in order to maintain your right to say racist things. To those of us who aren’t obssessed with saying racist things, this is suggestive that the people who want to say those things at any cost might, possibly, be racist. And given what you have said before about black Americans on this blog …
We appear to be at a critical juncture. The logic of terrorism is the generalise the cost of exploitation amongst those perceived to be its beneficiaries. The logic, so called, is to make us measure the errors of our ways in litres of blood and tears. And our oligarchs and populist leaders will suffer us dieing in any number while encouraging us to stand strong in the name of a spurious culture war whose purpose is their own wealth and strategic advantage.
The culture wars narrative will be mercilessly shoved down our throats. It can be contested in ways that corpses can’t. Non-cooperation looks like a good option.
But how to engage with non-cooperation? First and foremost by exercising freedom of speech which means, in this instance, disrupting the ruler’s narrative of ‘primitive them’ against ‘civilized us’ by the simple act of disagreement through reasoned argument.
However, it needs to go further. If terror is to constitute our future then there needs to be an open exploration of the subject without anyone being accused of advocacy, ie, of encouraging or supporting terrorism.
It appears to me that we are caught in a bad trap, in the West, all of the classes who are either subordinate to or supports for the rule of oligarchs. We are, whether wanted or not, the beneficiaries, currently and historically, of Western imperialism. Aggrieved victims of this process have identified ‘soft targets’ liable to produce whatever reaction they want. Whatever that might be. By the logic of terrorism, we are all equally guilty.
But some of us are more protected than others. Like the wealthy, parliamentarians, the impossibly wealthy. We will have to pay the price of their freedoms and their wealth all the while sharing less and less of it.
Now, there’s a future ripe for terrorism.
I am not Charlie Hebdo and I’ll be damned if I’ll die in a ditch in their freedoms.
What have I said about “Black Americans”? Or are you just making s**t up?
It’s not coordinated or deliberate but it’s highly effective. We’re all racists now. Apparently.
Thanks Ikonoclast for the link to the Teju Cole article.
No TerjeP, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists were racists. Do you get it? They showed they were racists by drawing specifically racist caricatures repeatedly and insistently. There is no secret to this analysis. If you say and do racist things, you are a racist. This is not a new and secret left-wing trick, it’s a fact. Get over it.
@faustusnotes
What did I say about “Black Americans” that warranted a mention? What did I say or do that made you concluded I was guilty of racism? I regard racism as a pretty dire failure of character so I don’t take the accusation lightly. But you bandy it about like it is nothing.
“I fail to see how libertarians supporting free speech is racist.”
I fail to see how libertarians can ignore the fact that there is a difference between free speech and hate speech. Hating is not a functional human emotion; it shuts down the higher cognitive processes; it is all about raising the emotional responses in humans who do not need any more encouragement to use their emotional faculties rather than their rational ones.
Cory Bernardi is a hater using emotion and lies and distortion only to vilify and blame a group of people. He is not useing his right to speak freely in a rational way and argue for a rational and evidence based point of view. He is using emotional rhetoric encourage hatred against the people he ignorantly and mistakenly blames for the trouble he sees.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jan/11/cory-bernardi-says-18c-changes-should-be-revisited-following-attacks-in-france
Terje, There is an argument with research to support the suggestion, that all of us who grow up in relatively cohesive social and cultural groups that are doing well, are racist unless we do something to actively challenge our ‘instincts’ and the entirely natural and adaptive belief that what our tribe does is better than what that other tribe does.
Have you done the work to ensure that you are fair and rational when you think of young black men and how much crime they do or is part of the package when one claims libertarian status that one is rational and not subject to any of these human ways of irrational thinking?
TerjeP, on the Ferguson thread you directly stated that there was a problem with black American communities. It was pretty clear what you meant. And now you want to stand up for the right to say racist things, even when it’s pointed out to you that that right would necessarily be extended to people saying cruel and potentially damaging things to individuals (e.g. Kan Monis). What am I to conclude from this coincidence?
@Julie Thomas
Good post. You sum up the key issues well.
@TerjeP
If the word ‘racist’ is being rendered meaningless, it’s not by people who make accusations of racism, but by people (like you) who reject them.
@TerjeP
Everybody knows that you don’t understand racism. Perhaps the best thing you could do is go away for a while and come back when you do.
Rupert might get his 100 year war on Islam .Both sides are growing stronger ,feeding off each other .Its very worrying how we are encouraged only to think of ‘them’ as irrational savages. There is gong to be a permanent memorial in Martin Place to our 2 Christian victims ,one of whom it seems was shot by the police. We lose 2 and a national orgy of grief ensues, they lose 100’s of thousands and we think they deserved it anyway. And now in the name of free speech we demand the right to continue laughing at them. That on top of a Colonial past ,and the reality of present day life on the periphery of our Empire, and you can see why they are angry.
Having looked into the style of CH in the context of free speech a bit I agree with the sentiments expressed here. The response of the worlds cartoonists seems disappointing ,seeing it only in terms of free speech. Get ready for more expansion of the surveillance and security state given their pathetic failures to stop any of this entirely predictable (10 years ago) lone wolf stuff .BTW ,in this context my experience has been that what annoys Conservatives the most is when I have said that we shouldn’t have started a fight we cant win ! Ha ha .
If you call it art and you are bigoted in an evenhanded way you might be able to get away with it once or twice .But if thats all you do year in year out and your work ends up being admired and consumed by racists then thats different. I’m no CH or cartooning expert but a few people are saying their work is of the latter type .
Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept is good on this. And he really nails our free speech cartoonists.
Greenwald’s piece is good – particularly that he makes the distinction between defending free speech, per se, and endorsing the message in the free speech.
From his article I first learned of the sacking of a CH columnist over one sentence in one column that was denounced by a French ‘columnist’ as ‘anti-semitic’.
The sacked guy was Maurice Sinet, he writes as “Sine”, and the condemned column was about Sarkozy’s son.
They were obviously heavily bigoted against muslims in their material, but also applied double-standards when it came to israel.
From Wikipedia:
Would it kill you to provide a link to my supposedly racist comment.
Okay I think I found what you are refering to which is this:-
https://johnquiggin.com/2014/12/23/sandy-hook-and-peshawar/comment-page-1/#comment-249611
Thanks for the update. When I was growing up the term “racist” meant somebody who thought people of other races were inferior. But as I observed earlier there is clearly a campaign to throw out that meaning and replace it with something else.
p.s. For what it is worth I think you should post a retraction and an apology. I am not now nor have I ever been a racist.
@TerjeP
As I pointed out at the time, that kind of remark is commonly made by people who intend to suggest that the problems of black people are caused by black people, without ever considering the alternative hypothesis that the problems of black people are caused by white people. You had the opportunity to respond then and explain that you intended something different, but you never replied to my comment.
Expanding on that comment, what is often intended by people who make that kind of comment is that the problems of black people are caused by black people because there’s something wrong with black people. Now, there could be ways of saying ‘there’s something wrong with black people’ that aren’t racist, but suspecting it of being a racist comment is rational and natural. The line of thinking that takes a reader from the actual words of your comment to the idea that you think black people are inferior by nature is not a series of strict logical entailments, but it’s to be expected that people will take it. If it’s a misinterpretation of your views, it’s not an unnatural or unreasonable interpretation of your views, and you should be prepared for it and guard against it.
If you did not mean to suggest that the problems of black people are a consequence of their natural inferiority, you have another opportunity now to explain what you did mean, and if your concern for what people think of you is genuine it should be a motive to take that opportunity.
In short: if you genuinely want to avoid being taken for a racist, you should avoid making the kinds of statement that racist people make to justify their racism.
@J-D
Where on earth have statements like:
been made to “justify their racism”???????
Recognising the damage of racism is not justifying it.
This fits my definition of irony. Two parties (J-D and TerjeP) arguing about a phenomenon (black disadvantage in the US) when neither party understands the ideological and economic parameters of US political economy.
J-D seems to have a sociological understanding of racism and its outcomes which I would concur with by the way. TerjeP appears as if he is being condemned for an ambiguous statement which can have different constructions put on it. I refer to the sentence that follows. “There seems to be something fundamentally broken in regards to black communities in the USA.”
Now, “in regards to” is an awkward construction but even if TerjeP had used “in” or “with regard to” we could not assume a prima facie case that TerjeP was locating the cause of the failure in black communities or in black people. Other constructions can be put on these expressions. If I pick it up a mechanical clock and note it is stopped and rattles upon shaking, I could say, “There is something broken in this clock”. This does not mean I am assigning an endogenous cause (e.g. metal fatigue) or an exogenous cause (e.g. dropping the clock).
TerjeP should be accorded the presumption of innocence. This is on the principle of “innocent until (and if) proven guilty”. To continue the legal analogy, maybe he needs a light caution about being more careful not to leave ambiguities in statements concerning possible racial debates given the sensitivity of the subject.
@Ikonoclast
Or, as a better alternative to windy speculation, he could just explain what he means.
I’m not using the R word, but I am genuinely interested in his explanation of what he means by black communities being “fundamentally broken”, which can’t be done without identifying how this came about, including whether the causes are endogenous or exogenous and, if the latter, what needs to be done by those outside.