Formersnag,

You are half-right: "Between 1945 & 1965 Aboriginal children finishing school were literate, were capable of going on to TAFE college or university."

The problem was that, in a discriminatory society as Australia was back then (and some may say, still is), Aboriginal people had had to endure dumbed-down education for fifty years by then - it was called 'culturally-adapted education' in colonial Africa, 'industrial education' for Blacks in the southern states of the USA. Down here in SA, almost nobody was able to even finish primary school and go on to secondary school until the 1950s - after all, secondary schools were usually in towns and Blackfellas weren't allowed to live in towns. So very, very few people were able to go on to university (or even TAFE) until the late seventies. The first university graduates in SA finished their studies in 1954 (1), 1964 (2), 1965 (1), 1966 (1) - all from teachers' colleges. The first SA Indigenous uni graduates finished at Flinders Uni in 1972, the first one at Adelaide Uni in about 1985 - barely twenty five years ago. By this year, around five thousand Indigenous people had at some time or other been enrolled in a university course in SA - sixteen hundred had graduated, another seven hundred were enrolled, thanks mainly to Indigenous student publicity, preparation and support programs.

And those graduates - ask them - remain Indigenous, no matter what course they have studied. In fact, I have been struck often by how much stronger their sense of Aboriginality/Indigeneity has become AFTER they have graduated, how much more active and dynamic it is.

Yes, in a racist society, Indigenous people had the ability to go to university - but policy dictated for decades that they shouldn't. Their rights to do so have expanded step-by-step with the opening-up of Australia to people from regions besides northern Europe, from Asia, Africa and elsewhere. That's fine with me.

{TBC}

[contd.]

Multiculturalism can be constructive and innovative, as long as it does not in any way hinder the ability of any person from any 'culture' from accessing all of the opportunities that a democratic society like ours is supposed to provide. After all, that's what most migrants and refugees value about Australia - that's the ideal that they have mostly been ardent about supporting, an ideal called 'the fair go'. You may wish to debate this point :)

As long as everybody comes under the rule of law equally, no matter what their religious beliefs, historic origins, food preferences, strength of family ties, choice of music, dance, art or shoe size, then Australia's doors should be open to them. In this sense, Australia is a model for many other countries - multiculturalism based on the principles of equal rights, the rule of law and the separation of religion and the state.

Following Popper, I guess you could call this 'negative multiculturalism': what it demands as a minimum requirement, and therefore whatever else it permits.

Cheers,

Joe

Formersnag,

you disgust me more than words can say with your lurid vilifications.
<What is wrong with you people? Why do you hate your own?>

If you are representative of "our own" then it's healthy and you deserve to be despised, and pitied. But thankfully, miserable mindsets like yours are rare.

You need to get out more--I mean outside that bare cell inside your skull, and meet people.
At the childcare centre where we send our twins two days a week there's a delightful Indian girl (I say girl because she's very young) with the most beautiful nature I think I've ever encountered, and she's the only one my little boy will go to when he really doesn't want to be there. I have many "oriental" acquaintances and know none who are not pleasant or even delightful company--and they're all grateful to be here. Why should they have to deal with unprovoked Australian xenophobia?
People like you are a miserable but influential minority and "You" largely create the problem!

Squeers:

…What we read being debated in all its forms, is high rates of immigration translating itself into MC. Above are, what I would consider to be excellent and informed and objective comment. (e.g. consider Divergence above). You, by your own confession, have been force fed your history lessons in academia and “flag” a subjective immaturity by referencing your most favoured foreigners, as proof for the success of MC.

…I challenge you to point to any moment in history where national boarders were not defended against invasion, and the sovereignty of any nation, was not jealously guarded by its nationals. Australian history strongly aligns itself with such conflicts, in two major world wars. Your argument ignores this reality apparently.

…Many people in this country consider high levels of immigration to be a national threat to sovereignty, and thus multiculturalism to be a serious threat to the host culture. It is overly simplistic to consider that particular shared opinion as xenophobic and racist on all counts.

diver dan,
if history's your defence you're among friends with formersnag and co! But I despise history as I despise your position. History should be your scourge and not your defence!

This discussion appears to have gone a bit downhill lately. Perhaps it is worthwhile to identify the main areas of interest (as I see them).

1.) I don't think there is much dispute really about our current multicultural society (no turning back anyway) and any problems are relatively few and nothing we can't handle quite easily with existing processes,
2.) There is an interest from some ethnic groups, or a council of such groups, to have a greater say in MC, or public affairs, but that should not be seen as a threat to anyone. This is a democracy, and all deserve to be heard. So we shouldn't jump to conclusions about possible outcomes - and everyone actually appears to hold a strong interest in "fitting in",
3.) Immigration policy Is at issue, and warrants a clear and transparent consideration of viewpoints, and a consensus outcome in the national interest, but we should not preempt that outcome,
4.) No-one ought believe it would either be possible or in our interest to contemplate an open-border policy, so we should just forget about that,
5.) Costs involved in processing migrants and getting them settled may be at issue to an extent, but we should accept that the majority will become valuable contributing members in due course - given half a chance,
6.) Compassion for refugees is something of a stumbling block - on the one hand we would like to be of greater help, but on the other hand we cannot solve the world's problems,
7.) We should Not assume that MC is the best objective for all nations, or that we should push such a view. I think some nations will be better off staying relatively non-MC, but this need not be a source of increased international stress or jealousy - as inequity/impoverishment is the real elephant in the corner, and this is what really needs to be addressed at an international level,
8.) We are well off, but absolute equality is an impossible dream, but do have to improve employment opportunity for all Australians.