This muddle-headed article is fraught with problems, the most obvious being the author's complete dismissal of any genetic differences between different ancestral groups (the scientifically approved euphemism for races). The reality is that genetically-distinguishable population clusters do exist.

From the New York Times:

"A genomic survey of world populations by Dr. Feldman, Noah Rosenberg and colleagues in 2002 showed that people clustered genetically on the basis of small differences in DNA into five groups that correspond to the five continent-based populations: Africans, Australian aborigines, East Asians, American Indians and Caucasians, a group that includes Europeans, Middle Easterners and people of the Indian subcontinent. The clusterings reflect “serial founder effects,” Dr. Feldman said, meaning that as people migrated around the world, each new population carried away just part of the genetic variation in the one it was derived from.

The new scans for selection show so far that the populations on each continent have evolved independently in some ways as they responded to local climates, diseases and, perhaps, behavioral situations.

The concept of race as having a biological basis is controversial, and most geneticists are reluctant to describe it that way. But some say the genetic clustering into continent-based groups does correspond roughly to the popular conception of racial groups."

As for the author's insistence that Australians celebrate 'diversity', why would they want to? History has demonstrated time and time again that ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity within the same nation is a source of strife, not strength. If you don't believe me, then take a minute to think about how many 'race riots' and other inter-ethnic problems Australia experienced prior to the advent of mass non-European immigration in the 1970s. Is anybody prepared to claim that Australia is a more cohesive, harmonious society now compared to four decades ago?

(continued below..)

Although many try to deny it, the truth is that everyone on this planet is ethnocentric to a certain degree - some groups certainly more than others. In other words, most people prefer to live among their own kind. This applies across the board, ranging from one's own extended family to entire national communities.

Those Western lefties who claim to have somehow 'transcended' ethnicity are deluding themselves. Given that many immigrant minority groups shamelessly expand their numbers and influence at the expense of the host Australian population, it's clear that the many of the groups now inhabiting the Left's multicultural fantasy land clearly do not share their vision of a race-blind society.

"Appreciating our differences is the key to solving the problems they cause."

What is it with multiculturalists and oxymoronic statements?

Emphasizing difference cannot, by definition, bring us closer together.

"If we can manage this we will put an end to race riots, once and for all. We must appreciate the diversity we have built into our multi-cultural society. After all, your hair colour matters not when you vote or work, so why should your skin colour? Let’s embrace our diversity of ancestry."

The only way we will put an end to race riots, once and for all, is to erase any distinguishable differences between different ancestral groups - not only on a national scale, but also a global scale. This would require a world-wide exchange of populations, creating an identical racial mix in every country, followed by several generations of scientifically planned and state-controlled intermarriages, resulting in a single perfectly blended human race.

Now, if only we can convince the rest of the world to agree to such a plan.

Efranke,

The article is suggesting that the "celebrate diversity" catch-cry and the ideology it represents are part of a cleverly crafted strategy to distract the general populace (us) from confronting material inequality and the social inequality based upon it. The writer muses that the "working families" mantra of the Rudd Government is a similarly devised diversion.

I think there is some important truth in Jeremy's article. "Race" is a mirage when applied as a concept to discussing social issues. So, for that matter, are a lot of other notions like "cultural Left/Right". Stop using them. Try thinking and communicating without the comfortable short-hand labels. That's when really productive thought begins.

Semantic analysis is crucial to clear thinking and productive public discussion. I put forward a similar argument about the trap of the "race" concept in my OLO article in the wake of the Cronulla riot: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4108

Efranke says: "History has demonstrated time and time again that ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity within the same nation is a source of strife, not strength."

This thesis is pure nonsense. because there is no correlation between nation and ethnic or cultural purity. It is impossible to identify a nation with racial or ethnic or cultural purity. The UK for example - before mass migration from the old empire - was made up of numbers of different peoples.

Efarnke asks: "Is anybody prepared to claim that Australia is a more cohesive, harmonious society now compared to four decades ago?" The answer is simply "Yes". We are more accepting of diversity than ever before - and a better society because of it.

As for the vision of erasing "any distinguishable differences between different ancestral groups - not only on a national scale, but also a global scale...[requiring] a world-wide exchange of populations, creating an identical racial mix in every country, followed by several generations of scientifically planned and state-controlled intermarriages, resulting in a single perfectly blended human race", Efranke must be living in cloud cuckoo land. Or smoking something very strong.

Put 'race', 'inequality' and 'economics' in an essay and people always seem drawn to the first of the three words.... *sigh*.

Thank you Crabsy, for noticing the other two.

Jeremy

Jeremy.. you said:

"The general principle here is that our commitment to diversity has redefined the opposition to discrimination as the appreciation (rather than the elimination) of difference."

I'd say it much more intensely.

Multi-culturalism has become a political tool and an industry.

It goes against every ounce of common sense, and every chapter in Histories blood soaked pages, that promoting 'difference' in anyway promotes cohesive societies.

Our 'diversity' is much more than 'celebrated' it is actively encouraged with multi cultural grants of all description.

Common sense should say that if we have funding, it should reward 'steps toward unity' and a blurring of any divesity.

In my view, cross cultural marriage is a great leap forward.

The biggest barrier to unity is.. RACISM, and this is most clearly detected in..none other than what is euphemistically called 'Celibrating diversity'
No..its RACISM.. because it emphasizes "Us/them".. and I ask this...

Why do people add an ethnic tag to 'Australian'...? If you wish to be called a 'Chinese' Australian... rather than an "Australian" what's going on? Why is there 'pride' in ones ethnicity?

"pride" (when connected to a race) is a synonym for 'racism'

ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE ONE RACE.. is my long sounded catch cry.

But.. I've also used the word 'blended'..but I'll only apply this to individual countries..not the world

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=164&page=0

will flesh out my thinking and meanings on the 'rant'

"The workers, divided will never be defeated"....wait..no, it doesn't go like that.. aaah yes..I've got it "The Workers, united, will never be defeated"...

Unity..not diversity....it's common sense.

Boaz, you still, even after my most assiduous coaching, fail to see the inherent contradiction in your proposed Australian Master Race.

>>Why is there 'pride' in ones ethnicity?
"pride" (when connected to a race) is a synonym for 'racism'
ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE ONE RACE.. is my long sounded catch cry.<<

Let's have another go.

Q: Do you have pride in being Australian?

Boaz: Yes, of course. That's what this is all about, isn't it?

Q: Does that not make you racist, using your own definition of pride being a synonym for racism?

Boaz: Ah, no, you can't catch me that way. I very specifically said "pride, when connected to a race"

Q: So, when you say "ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE ONE RACE", what do you actually mean by the "race" part?

Boaz: Australian, obviously, once we are all intermarried and coffee-coloured and all mixed up together, we'll all be happy Australians.

Q: So our "race" would effectively be... Australian?

Boaz: You've got it! Absolutely! And we'd be proud of it!

Q: We'd be proud of our race, then? But isn't pride, when connected to race, synonymous with racism...?

Bzzzzzt.

There once was a gardener who loved his garden. But then it rained so he went into his house to keep warm & safe and dry. Well the Garden plants went crazy with rage. "He is a racist and prefers his house to us plants", went the cry. So the plants all talked of ridding themselves of the gardener once and for all and plotted to overthrow him.
But then the sun came out and the gardener returned with compassion and caring hands and averted disaster.
Meanwhile the plants still harboured resentment and slowly plotted .... for their day.

The moral of the story?

If you stop your immigration program because overpopulation & extra carbon footprints are destroying your environment, sapping your social services and metropolitan infrastructures and lowering the standard of living of your existing citizens to a ratrace, it doesn't necessarily follow that you are a racist. The only ones who would tout that line are people with vested interests in political power, votes, market share and GST revenues of 10% on everything the extra carbon footprints spend.

When there's an end to Peakoil-recession, climate change and metropolitan gridlock then a caring leader will reinstate our immigration program. An absolute greed-bound fool of course, like our Federal gardener poncing around in the rain, will continue the immigration to collect virtually worthless post peakoil GST dollars. He will also invest this country's windfall profits in complicated American Ponzi scheme instruments little knowing he's blown our dosh, while his deputy gardener, in total oblivion comes on and does the most exquisite impersonation of the ex-Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.

Hi Pericles.

If.... the end result of the blending of Australian diversity into 'one' was SO that we can be 'proud' of our newly developed 'race'..then your criticism would be valid.

But alternatively, IF.. the objective is simply to reduce tension, potential trouble, ethnic rivalry and an unchoesive society..then you are incorrect.

and I hasten to say..that IS the objective.

I confine it to our borders for the sake of discussion, but this should not imply anything about any racial posturing or pride toward any neighbouring people..it's purely a 'cultural management' exercise.

I'm hoping Kev Rudd will read this :) I'm rather warming to him these days.. a hard worker.. a keen interest in infrastructure..and education and health, didn't 'slash and burn' the established order...
just selective harvesting... didn't cave in much to the gay lobby, if he gets immigration on track in terms of social, cultural and political compatability.. I might even vote for him next time :)

I don't hold out much hope for you to ever agree with the simple common sense proposition that 'difference' whether it be a footy team, or a cultural club.. always brings 'rivalry' and competition in the end... and worse still, in the event of a shortage.. becomes very Tribal and violent (Kenya)

It's true, you won't, Boaz.

>>I don't hold out much hope for you to ever agree with the simple common sense proposition that 'difference' whether it be a footy team, or a cultural club.. always brings 'rivalry' and competition in the end<<

For you, diversity can only mean friction, trouble and therefore danger.

To me, diversity - and competition, for that matter - is an essential component of human existence.

Instead of friction, trouble and danger, I see that they bring interest, vitality and awareness.

I am absolutely certain that I have as little chance to shift you from your pessimistic, fear-laden, doomsday thought processes, as you have to move me from my optimistic, trusting and open-minded ones.

Where you see doom, gloom and disaster, I see opportunity, growth and dynamism.

To be constricted by a narrowness of vision such as yours would, I have to confess, be a living death for me.

It staggers me to think of the sheer number of opportunities that you let slip past; opportunities to be surprised and delighted by new thoughts, new ideas, new experiences as you travel through the most exciting thing that will ever happen to you: living.

Compared to 90% of the world's population, you live in the lap of luxury - family, car, food on the table, beard, possibly even friends - yet you continue to insist that the world is going to come to a sticky end real soon now, simply because not everyone believes the same stuff that you do.

If you weren't such a smug, self-righteous and condescending old b*gger, I'd probably feel sorry for you.

Hi, I was not tolerant enough of differences of opinion myself to get far through reading all before me in this thread, but perhaps only because my own opinion is far neater in this complex issue.

First we need to know that focussing on diversity brings our similarities to the fore, while focussing on our similarities amplifies our differences. Therefore it is normally the best anti-racist move, to focus on what the real differences are.

Second, those real differences have been discovered by geneticists to be able to be traced into a set of seven genetic markers which we each many have as few as one of, and as many as seven of; however, it is the combination of cultural belief, often defined by religious dogma, within each individual's genetic capacity, that defines the nature of human diversity.

Then we have to get into the questions about how far environment may or may not be causal to culture; and whether language is causal to culture, or an effect of culture.

One too many cooks might spoil the broth of the simplest issue that there is in this matter: it is wrong to define any life sustaining biological characteristic as criminal. When we can remember that, we are swimming around happily together in the soup of human bio-diversity. That is, if we can readily define what crime is.

ps It was a while back now, that John Pilger wrote in his book "The Secret Country", that we Australians are actually managing our ethnic diversity more peacefully than any other nation with the same level of diversity; but what he wrote still holds good.

BOAZ says: "ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE ONE RACE.. is my long sounded catch cry."

No matter how often you repeat this mindless mantra, the reality will remain: no nation has only one culture or one race. Challenge: tell us one nation that is mono-cultural or mono-racial?

I think you need a refresher in history.

Well I thought it was a fair article. The topic needs more focus on the distinction between culture and race (way different), some replies seems to conflate the two. There is no such thing as race, but boy does it fill a need.

Where I live most residents are foreign-born. The local businesses are owned and run by immigrants, many of whom have a poor grasp on Asutralian language and customs (please, don't ask me what they are, I can't define them either). In any case it's a lot more diverse - read "interesting" - than the all-white, all chicken 'n chips, bonza 'burb I grew up in.

Celebrating diversity?
Ask the two Christian evangelicals who recently were ordered to "move on" by local bobby in a part of London deemed to be dominantly Muslim.I use the word "dominantly"advisedly. They were informed by the copper that they were trespassing and about to make the place disorderly and riotus. They protested that they were doing the Lord's work.They had been to parts of Scotland and Wales and no one was offended and disorderly as a consequence.They went to Catholic belfast and tried the same thing.All that happened was that they were abused and someone threw some beer over them!But here in London where they actually lived and were doing the Lord;'s work they were being cautioned and ordered out as it was a "no-go" area for evangelical work. They want to know if visas should be applied for. Did anyone call for the law to intervene? Were there to be any more such "no-go" areas st up in the UK?What if they started springing up all over the country in places like bradford,Birmingham,Manchester etc?

It's sort of a Balkanisation of the country,isnt it?

Here in Australia we had a bit of argy-bargy in Cronulla but it has never been made into a "no-go" area.Not yet?

socratease

Dear Spikey....did you by any chance read the link to my previous post on that subject? I rather think you didn't :)

I always write 'headline' then story... its a 'grabber' mate.. but I'd be interested in your view about the original expression of this idea 'One' Race.. see if you tweak to what I mean... really.

Tell me.. if you are 'Anglo' and your son marries an Arab.. what race is your grandchild? and that grandchild marries an Asian..what 'race' is he/she? and that grandchild marries an Aboriginal..what 'race' is the child?

BOAZ asks: "did you by any chance read the link to my previous post on that subject? I rather think you didn't." In fact I did, sir, and that's where I formed the impression that BOAZ has done little original thinking on this topic over time. His mind appears to be locked in the firmly-shut position.

BOAZ's interest in intermarriage seems obsessive. He asks: "If you are 'Anglo' and your son marries an Arab.. what race is your grandchild? and that grandchild marries an Asian..what 'race' is he/she? and that grandchild marries an Aboriginal..what 'race' is the child?"

My answer would be: What does it matter so long as they were good people of integrity? Why this obsession with Race? Unless....

I notice that BOAZ ducks and weaves to avoid answering my direct question about ONE NATION. Another indicator of how he's coming to this question with his mind firmly shut.

bennie: << There is no such thing as race, but boy does it fill a need. >>

Indeed, particularly for people like our Boazy, for whom it constitutes something of an obsession.

Boazy: << Tell me.. if you are 'Anglo' and your son marries an Arab.. what race is your grandchild? and that grandchild marries an Asian..what 'race' is he/she? and that grandchild marries an Aboriginal..what 'race' is the child? >>

Er, they're members of the human race - the term doesn't apply to ethnic categories like 'Anglo', 'Arab', 'Asian' or 'Aboriginal'. Do I get a jelly bean?

My neighbours are from another culture.

At first I was suspicious and uncomfortable, but after repeatedly being lectured to by learned professors, I concluded my dislike of my neighbours was just due to my own stupidity.

Not the fact that they're cannibals.

I hear they invited a molecular anthropologist to sample their cuisine, and he could not taste any difference between the negroid, mongoloid and caucasian dishes served.

I haven't seen the molecular anthropologist around lately. Maybe he moved away.

Anyway, got to go. The neighbours are having me for dinner.

I unapologetically HATE the RAT 'race' that has descended upon Australia's metropolitan societies under Howard's and now with greater intensity under Rudd's "Immigrate 4 GST" policy. The utter hypocrisy of loading capital cities with over 400,000 immigrant carbon footprints a year while pretending to be a climate change proactive government!
No green programs, even if they don't get stalled forever in the SENATE, can ever make up for that massive additional thermodynamic waste load.

How is Rudd getting away with this outrage against rational logic?

Here's labor's dirty secret:

If all you new immigrants and prospective immigrants (all 6 billion of you) want a piece of this country and believe you are entitled to it all you have to do is apply for citizenship or a work visa, vote Labor, pay your 10% GST and who knows, if you infiltrate the public service and bribe the right people you could become a property developer, become KING of Australia, privatise all ESSENTIAL services and exterminate the abbos, chinks and skippys through neglect and attrition.

That's MY Labor kind of country. Now how can we get those racist Japs to have a multicultral policy & open up to immigration? Hmmm! Let's infitrate their public service, branch stack their government and cops and push for a GST. They are so broke right now they couldn't resist. Soon the whole world will be run by greeks and italians, the way it should be.

!The way it should be ... "IMMIGRATE 4 GST"!

I say !The way it should be ... "IMMIGRATE 4 GST"!

Don't worry Tony we'll have you back out and about before Peakoil hits these dopey malaccas.

The answer to David’s great question
“If you are an Anglo and your son marries an Arab and that grandchild marries an Asian and that grandchild marries and Aboriginal” what is that child.

That child is then a member of one Australian tribe and there will be no ethnic cleansing like we’ve seen in Germany – Serbia - East Timor – Rwanda – Somalia - Sudan - The Kurds - Chechnya in Russia - the Chinese in the Solomons - 1million Arabs by the Turks - 15million Chinese by the Japs - the constant attempts at ethnic cleansing by the Jews and the Palestians, the Poles by the Russians in WW11, the Indians by the Americans,The Aborigines by the British, the list goes on and on through the history books. Mankind hasn’t changed we are still biologically driven to protect our closest bloodline like the animals. The old cell knowing it must die protects the new cell. Its simple biology.