Geoffrey,

Didn't you know about the Sins of the Fathers causing the early problems of multicultulism after WW2 and the declared end of colonialism? But it was pretty hard to end it because Queen Victoria had declared herself Empress of India. But Gandhi fixed all that.

But still there were problems, Harold Wilson having to promise citizens of the West Indies that they were now citizens of the UK, the home country. The same applied to Indians and Pakistanis, Britain becoming crowded with dusky non-whites.
Yet some say it was not really legal but only a non-written promise. Charles de Gaulle thus decided to sign a documentation that all people from former French North African colonies were now citizens of metropolitan France, which now has France properly multi-coloured.

So blame Europe for trying to grab countries that still had humans in them, the Biblical Sins of the Fathers really coming to fruition in modern times.

George C -WA - (Bushbred)

Thank you, Geoffrey.

I agree that people should not blame multiculturalism. I also agree that many opponents of multiculturalism use their critiques to hide their xenophobia (Akerman, Bolt, Albrechtsen etc).

Some neo-Conservative commentators seem to think that there is something inherently conservative about hating people because of the colour of their skin or their ethno-religious heritage.

My objection is to state-funded multiculturalism. I object to governments funding certain organisations claiming to have representative status. Whilst sub-contracting social welfare services seems good in theory, in practise it has led to the formation of ethnic rotten borroughs which suck government funds and use them to build ethnic political empires.

This is what has happened in the Muslim communities. As a result, talented young Muslims such as the Dureihi brothers can only find a voice in fringe radical groups like Hizbut Tahrir.

Many ethno-religious bodies are now beginning to realise that matters are out of their hands. Thankfully, some ordinary Muslim Australians have taken it upon themselves to act as whistleblowers, exposing the corruption of some of these organisations. Their misuse of funding has now turned into a national security issue.

Geoffrey Brahm seems to believe that there is no proof that multiculturalism has not worked. Note that I did not say "does not work", because it can work and one day when all peoples of the earth are sufficiently open-minded, tolerant and respectful of others(as long as no one's views are discriminatory) then such a commonsense phase in human evolution will no doubt be instituted. But now is not the time for certain cultures, and this is obvious, that's right Geoff, there is evidence everywhere. Look at any Western nation and you will no doubt see that most (except Japan who are still extremely ethnocentric and racist, as are most asian cultures) have undergone severe demographic changes in the past fifty years(ABS figures have Aust. at 8.5 million anglos out of total 20 million people). Take Australia:this nation wholeheartedly extended a full welcome to many peoples from many places, and two of these stand out as bad choices - Middle-eastern and Vietnam. They have situated themselves at Bankstown/Punchbowl and Cabramatta/Fairfield respectively and it just so happens that these are also the country's crime capitals in the most sickest of crimes including drugs, murder, robbery, manslaughter, car reburthing and now even gang rape. These places together with their Melbourne diasporic counterparts are more than 75% of our nations' most serious crimes (add up the figures yourself for LGAs in ABS data-then cross reference this data with the demographic population proportions of these areas).
While their community leaders continue to deny a problem of fundamental disrespect that their people have for the wider white community, and this is why they have not integrated into society while some other groups (such as Chinese and Indian)have done very well, that the problem is internal to them and is one of racism and ethnocentrism, then it will all just get worse and kids will continue to want to blow up "white flesh" to alleviate the rage that their own culture produces.
WHITES ARE THE ONLY NON-RACISTS...

The biggest problem with a multi cultural policy which does not spell out the prevailing Anglo European cultural expections to all new comers to this land, is found in Burnsy's last line.
i.e. 'latent reaction' passionate, overdue, and vociforous. I personally would leave out the 'white' bit, and replace this with 'Judao Christian'.

Our failure to define 'Australian Culture' in Judao Christian/Anglo Europoean terms, to promote and celebrate it and to teach it in education to ALL, repeat ALL newcomers is the closest thing to our own self destruction as anything. I would call it cultural masochism.

The very idea that to teach our own history and poetry and exploits to all and sundry might be remotely 'offensive' to some minority group is above all the worst of insults and is intolerable.

The idea that my wifes village, and her ethnic family, would tolerate someone from a different culture coming in and living, celebrating,exercising a different culture among them as if the host did not exist is lunacy. They would tolerate it as far and ONLY as far as it did not conflict with the existing norms. Failure to comply would mean immediate ostracization and explusion, can anyone call this 'racist' ? of course not, it is simply cultural survival,and a solution to a very bad ill mannered uncaring visitor.

BRUSH. I tend to agree with all you said this time. Well observed.

Irfan. the only problem with Islamic Radicalism is the 'Islam' bit :)

"The more we come under pressure the more we return closer to Islam," said Wassim Doureihi yesterday.

The PM makes some comment about 'mutual responsiblity' etc. and this lunatic responds with
<<<
"He is implying we should not advocate an Islam that is a threat to Western capitalism."
>>>

Irfan, as long as guys like yourself are happy to 'out' these real threats to all of us, I'm happy. We can take up 'other' matters anytime :)

The things people say.

"...demographic changes in the past fifty years(ABS figures have Aust. at 8.5 million anglos out of total 20 million people)"

What are considered "anglos" in this context, I wonder. According to the ABS summary of the 2001 census, some 72.6% were born in Australia, and a full 80% describe their ancestry as "Australian, English or Irish.

Would M.S.Burns care to share his source that says there are more than 50% "non-anglos" living in Australia?

The concept of multiculturism has failed because it encouraged ethnic groups to maintain their cultural identity without having a competent grasp of English.We have insular ethnic enclaves that have no desire to be apart of the wider community.Our Govt policies have actively promoted segregation by not insisting that English is spoken well by all.

In our desire to keep economic growth/living standards and our justification for inhabiting this vast continent with a small population, we have accelerated the pace of social change beyond the reasoning or tolerance of of ordinary Australians.We are losing our own cultural indenity.Hence we have a backlash of fear and insecurity.It is time to slow down the pace of social change,or suffer the chaos of conflict and resultant poverty.

If we bring a third world mentality here on masse,we will end up with a third world economy.Perhaps the likes of Geoffry Brahm are happy with this outcome.Do they find some sort of nobility in poverty?

I for one like the time to think beyond the mundane routine of survival that many third world countries are enslaved in,because of their attitudes and over population.

Hey, M.S. Burns,

Did you really mean it when you capitalised at the end of your Post - WHITES ARE THE ONLY NON-RACISTS or aren't you an Aussie - or don't you know much about Aussie history?

During our gold rush days in the late 1800s, we asked for cheap labour from China mainly for cooking jobs and general rouseabouting. Thousands of Chinese arrived in Australia but as well as too many asking for better wages, many of the smarter ones began panning gold on new open-leasing country and doing very well out of it.

But the dinkum Aussie miners, as they called themselves, kicked up such a row that the whole 80,000 Chinese were shipped back home again.

If that wasn't racism, M.S, I'm buggered if I know what is? -
especially as white migrants were also coming in by the hundreds and getting good wages and also taking gold leases in new areas

George C, WA - (Bushbred)

Brushy....
shippping the Chinese back- that was not 'racism' it was rather clumsy cultural survival.

There might have been racism in their thinking, 'The chinks are inferior' but I guess that their main worry was the possibility of being culturally and socially over-run by a group not familiar to them. (besides..they dug ROUND mine shafts.. that will NEVER DO" :)

Funny.. the Chinese did EXACTLY that to the 'foriegn (white) devils' during the Boxer Rebellion :) and for the SAME reasons and it is totally understandable.

Our aboriginals TRIED it (and rightly so).... but we were more powerful. Hence.. we are here, the chinese are not.. such is history.

Brushy.. wake up moit and smell 'reality':)

BOAZ puts brushy on suspension from Disney for 3 weeks :)

Boaz,

You shame yourself, your philosophy is so much like the rotten superior colonial mentality that caused those Chinese to be sent back home, one could feel sorry for you. Calling the Chinese Chinks is not very becoming either. Looking back, we realise now it was not very becoming calling the Arabs wogs during WW2 neither. Now, we try to refrain from it, because it is one of the reasons they hate our guts so much, and so a major cause of terrorism. I don't know how old you are, my friend, but it could be said you have still got a lot to learn.

Bushbred

Brushy.. point of order... my 'Chinks are inferrior' if you looked closely was describing the attitude of some among the colonialists, not MY opinion.. (I'm married to one ) That is HOW racists (true racists) regard other people...

You don't need to feel sorry for me :) I'm quite happy with my very well read understanding of human nature.

You seem to have gone around my reference to the Boxer rebellion and the chinese treatment of 'white foreign devils' as they described us.

The point.....if you can actually read what I'm saying is that its about human nature... the real one, not the disney version.
Sometimes I get the impression that some people 'project' an idealized idea of how they would LIKE people to be onto people, regardless of whether they are actually like that or not.

We need to understand how people function as a product of their culture and ethnicty and religion, and in this context make every effort as far as it depends on us to 'live peacefully with all' and to follow the golden rule of putting God first and loving our neighbour as ourselves.

Only the naive and socially romantic would suggest that to 'love' your neighbour means letting him trample on you, your culture and your race. No, it does not mean that. It means that in the context of 'looking after your own' you also treat others as humanely and justly as circumstances allow.

In a war, where the issue is your survival, that might mean killing those who would otherwise kill you and your kids in front of you.

I don't think the Japanese had 'your best interests' at heart when they were slaughtering their way down the Sth East Asian islands and bombing Darwin.

Burnsy might be a bit 'one eyed' in his approach, but his basic understanding of human nature is spot on. Whites are as racist as anyone when surivival is concerned. But please don't suggest that Asian folk are less so :) cos they aint.

It is generally held that ideology, religion and race determine culture. Race is often the main focus in criticism of other cultures.

I think these days the idea of a racist is absurd. The science is there. Only a bigot would agree that race is, or should be, a factor in determining a person's status as a worthy human or suitability for Australian citizenship. The perception that a person’s culture, beliefs and even character can be defined by their skin colour still prevails - even though the logic is wrong.
In short, today's "racists" are really cultural supremacists. We all think our chosen religion, political beliefs, ideology, way of life is the best, but, unlike colour, they can be kept private. If we are living authentically, we must think that our community has found the best way of living (Just as we once thought that our given skin colour made us the best humans).
This is where discrimination can really stem from - it can stem from the tension we feel from the idea that someone else may have found a better way of life. I am talking of culture that is based on our chosen way of life – not necessarily race or religion. The choices we make in relation to how we conduct ourselves – our behaviour signals what way of life we see as the best way. Some people live their life as a positive example to others – as Christ did –others spend their time stirring up hatred, suspicion and division. It, discrimination, or, in its worst form, bigotry, stems from a lack of confidence in our own beliefs and, of course, a fear of the other. But most importantly it comes from the possibility that we are responsible through our alignment with the dominant community and its way of life for the suffering of the other; for the causes of the other’s dissent which may offend unconsciously, or consciously, our sense of justice. One coping strategy for those whose sub-conscious determines their behaviour is to launch violent and unrelenting attacks on other cultures.

I also think that the media, and those of you interested in the race debate, shy away from confronting the idea of non-race/ethnic cultural suprematism because it may mean that we have to confront our own culture which sees itself as the best. Don't get me wrong, I think all cultures need to open up to change – circumcision; treatment of women by most cultures; some indigenous law; some Christian beliefs and behaviours, such as vigilante thuggery; and other western behaviours, such as pornography; and Muslim ideas, such as a bunch of virgins are waiting at the gates of heaven for martyrs is, in my mind, just plain manipulative nonsense; and lastly the terrorist approach of countries like USA and Israel (USA has 10,000 nuclear warheads and Israel has 400 aimed at innocent mothers, fathers and children) are harmful and need re-thinking. (RE: the porn – read Peter Sellick’s latest. Peter, sensitive gentleman that his works suggest, didn’t dig deep enough into the kind of porn that is on the net – there are rape sites - one that depicts US soldiers raping Arabs – this is harming women [and thus discrediting patriarchy] and inter-cultural relations [thus degrading Christian credibility]), and is a fair indication that we need to tidy our own house up before attacking others. We need to take a long hard look at Western culture before we start judging other cultures – and remember I am an infidel.

RANCITAS.

Was that post somehow directed to my last one ? Hmm.. seriously, I can't quite see why you came with the 'cultural superiority' thing ?
I'm not and have not said our culture is 'superior'..in fact I've gone to great pains (I thought) to point out that it is just 'ours'.

I quite agree that anyone thinking his own culture is 'superior' to others in a kind of canonical sense, is indeed way off the mark and a bigot.

You keep on with this 'hatred/divisive/attacks' kind of retoric and I'm continually mystified about why.

All of the points you made do apply quite well to the 'cultural supremacist' who believes his culture is a) the best and c) that all other races should share it. (after all, because his is the best..right ? ) but this is not not not what I'm on about.

I maintain, that people 'are' what their culture makes them, by simple socialization. What you were suggesting was bordering on if not right on the very thing you were railing against.. the 'culture' of science..... you seem to be suggesting that all people should share specific values based on science. I have to disagree vehemently with that view.

If we 'are' a product of our cultural socialization, then to attack this, is an attack on the self esteem, dignity and human-ness of the person.
I repeat, its simple good manners to bow to a prevailing culture when one goes to a new country. It would be probably the one instance where I do believe in the 'political correct'ness of it.

Boaz: No Boaz I was not directing my blog at you. I was sharing an opinion in relation to Geoffrey Bram Levey’s article, especially, the last two paragraphs. Most of your assertions are incorrect. You are misinterpreting my blogs. I did not read the comments before posting mine. I wrote something similar months ago in a letter to my daughter. I did not say some of the things you claim I said. I am not railing against the things you believe that I am railing against. My use of ‘we’ in my post refers to society in general, not you and I. If I didn't mention you. My response was to the article and to share some ideas.
Yes I do avoid getting into endless tit for tat with bloggers clearly pushing a “cause” - especially ones that I think are dangerous, repetitive and politically unsound. This is a multi-cultural society. I will not be pressured into accepting something that is not my authentic choice.
Re: hate/divisive/attacks, I followed some suggested URL’s from this forum which were just that –hateful and divisive. Yes I think the constant haranguing of anyone who dares to offer different opinions, support for multiculturalism and religions other than theirs is divisive and unhelpful. It displays contempt for others’ intellect and ideas.
My blog’s point is simple. Again. Racism is an absurd notion the science proves it. ( After that there is no more alluding to science in my blog as claimed.) We (that is society in general) need to find other non- racist language to express difference. Difference, I think, should be identified in our actual behaviour and our way of life – not our ethnicity or colour. I think - to do otherwise is a type of racism. Christ said that we will know them by the fruits they produce – not their colour.

When a person makes a choice to live a certain way, by the very fact that he or she makes that choice, that person must regard that decision as the best choice for them to live an authentic life. Thus by the very fact that we make the myriad of choices that comprise our culture - we are signalling to others’ which culture we think is best for us – that is cultural suprematism. No getting around it. For instance, I think, among other groups, Protestants, Catholics, Baptists and Muslims are cultural supremacists. Doesn’t mean that they see themselves superior humans – as racists do. This also doesn’t mean that they want to convert others into their culture as does mono culture. It also confirms our multiculturalism is a good healthy democratic principle.
If we or the government start trying to unreasonably impose our choices (or opinions) on others, then we must not only be cultural supremacist - but bigots. We certainly would be undemocratic and unfair. If someone starts unreasonably attacking or denigrating someone else’s choices, then that person is a bigot (a person who is intolerantly convinced of the rightness of a particular creed, opinion or practice). I do, however, think that constructive criticism is a good thing. And persuasion is good, but different to harassment.
I think that certain groups and individuals who cannot extract themselves from the old way of thinking are blind to the multi-culturalism that is already and always will be with us. This is a multi-cultural society – if that wasn’t the case we would all have to submit to something along the lines of Hitler’s Volkish Philosphy (One idea - one people). So I say live and let live.

There are racists among us all, no matter white or black. We need to live and let live without kettle calling the pot black.

To be fair, cultural differences matter a great deal too.
You mostly see white protestors voicing against injustice towards other races rather than the other way around. If the table is turned, I won't imagine a lot of Asians would march out in open protest of injustice towards the whites or blacks.

During WW2, the unimaginable atrocities by the Japanese soldiers had a lot to do with their racist attitude too. I might add here that those nuclear bombs were justified. Until the Jap officially apologise to the war victims and compensate them, there always ought to be a deep dark scar in the pyschic of the Japanese history.

As for 'shipping the chinese back during the gold rush days in 1800s'...
Strange as it may sound, the degrees of racism has a lot to do with culture and the level of crisis. I would not use that incidence as a racist example against Aussies today. Rather, let me put it this way- What would have happened had those Aussies been Chinese instead? Would they have shipped those anglo-whites back to UK or simply slaughtered them?

My earlier post is about racism.

This thread is more about cultures... and this is from me:

The claim that 'multiculturalism works' is a rhetorical nonsense coming from the naive or those with the most to lose.

I do not believe in a 'multi-cultural' Australia. I like a 'White' Australia with a fairly significant minority population of diverse culture, with the exclusion of Muslims culture. And I mean a total exclusion of Islamic culture... if possible

Rancitas...thanx for the clarification.

Though you seem to be confusing 'imposing Christian belief' with 'imposing Christian values through democratic processes' there is an important difference. No one can impose belief, because no matter what the outside is doing, they can't control the inside.

I just feel that when the large majority of Aussies (of any race) acknowledge the Judao Christian understanding of life, that its reasonable to see that reflected in our legal and social environment.
I know one thing, if we are slack, those of a minority view on certain issues will have no apologies for imposing their values on us :) right? yes..of course you know I am on that.

I have reservations on your apparent extreme individualism 'right for them' which you seem to be applying too all and sundry. Thats just a polite way of describing 'anarchy' :)

GZ Tan.. nice to hear from an Asian on this subject, and that you make observations which did not hitherto occur to me, about it mainly being whites who protest against racism etc.. amen.
As for the 'reversing' of the 'sending the Chinese back' thing. Well done :) I've tried to make the point that they did exactly that in the Boxer rebellion, and I support them for doing so (putting myself in the position of a chinese at the time).

Small minorities usually can do very well in the midst of large majorities (unless they engage in anti social anti cultural behavior as some Muslims tend to do). The majority doesn't perceive them as a threat, and they tend to feel more of a 'large family' among themselves. So, its cool for all. Large minorities... thats a different question :)