Hamlet
My culture might not be important to you, but it is to me. More to life than OLO. The difference between Rancitas and other people of difference is that you lot can target others (especially immigrants) because of their colour, ethnicity, religion and so on. That is not a hard concept to grasp. Ethnocentricy is an interesting failing because when you have it you don't know you have it. Just as when you are cultural-centric you think that others are less important.

Hamlet
My culture might not be important to you, but it is to me. More to life than OLO. The difference between Rancitas and other people of difference is that you lot can target others (especially immigrants) because of their colour, ethnicity, religion and so on. That is not a hard concept to grasp. Ethnocentricy is an interesting failing because when you have it you don't know you have it. Just as when you are cultural-centric you think that others are less important.

Posted by rancitas, Thursday, 26 January 2006 12:28:54 PM

Racitas, I don't give a fig about the colour of a person's skin or their supposed race.

To me the issues of culture are:

A stated equality before the law.

Liberty

Individual responsibility,

Rule of law

Respect for law

Putting the overall good above that of the good of an particular clan, ethnic group or family.

Justice

Personal freedom.

Freedom of expression, freedom of learning.

Being able to all use the same language when communicating: it is language which binds us as a society.

Shared overall values.

Right of association.

Willingness to commit to one country - and only one country, no dual citizenship. Dual citizenship is to a country what adultery is to a marriage.

Democracy. Not having 'leaders', just representatives. As an individual I have no leader.

No patronage, each person to be be judged on his or her own actions and abilities, not on who they know.

Non tolerance for bribery or corruption.

Willingness to sacrifice for the good of my country and society.
Respect for others.

Honouring the flag, as a symbol of the state.

Treating others, partuculary the weak, the infirm, the aged as well as possible.

Not worshipping people, whether they be sports stars, celebrities or those in the media. They are just humans, and their excrement stinks too.

Those are my cultural values.

Can you tell me yours?

Hamlet, I liked your list. A fairly good summary of stuff many of us value about this country. I suspect that includes many on both sides of the "multicultural" debate.

Not sure about the dual citizenship comment though, I've never been a part of another country or had a need to try and obtain citizenship and find it difficult to be sure I understand the issue properly. So I'm taking some guesses.

As a nation we have coped pretty well with Kiwi's moving here and still supporting the All Blacks even against Australia (although Kiwi's who supported the POMs against Australia in the World Cup should be given a fair trial and then deported/shot/staked to an ant hill etc). Mixed loyalties are difficult but we all have them to some extent.

Maybe marriage is a reasonable metaphore for dual citizenship. When we get married we form a new family but are still part of our old one. If loyalties to the old family come before loyalties to the new one the marriage is in trouble, if it means we can enjoy a Saturday night with brothers, sisters and parents without harming our new family then great. For some dual citizenship may be a practical necessity, for others a means of recognising their origins and pledging their loyalty to their new home. Can't imagine ever wanting to give up my Australian citizenship even if I decided to live elsewhere for a sustained period but would not be willing to ignore responsibilities to my new home.

R0bert

Hamlet: Go read my blogs. That should give you an idea of my culture.

Some things are best kept private in this prejudiced country of ours.

If you expect me to summarise all Rancitas' compexities then I quess that is just another difference you'll have to add to your list of inferior aspects (in your mind) that we don't share. Nevertheless, apart from the wisdom I have gleaned from various cultures and religions (for instance, from the Bible I have come to regard the rights of certain other cultures as deserving of respect) here are some general rules in relation to a particular aspect of my culture. Before I go on I don't salute flags.
Some Rancitas' rules:
Do not coerce anyone and let nobody coerce you. Resist.
Do not humble yourself.
Do not be obsequious.
Pay tribute to those who deserve it.
Have nothing to do with bad people, avoid their company.
If there is no need to speak, be silent.
Don't draw attention to yourself.
Don't thrust your help on anyone.
Refuse undeserved honours.
Keep your word.
Do not preach at people.
Do not gloat over the misfortunes of others; nor take advantage.
Take no part in damaging power and do not cooperate with it.
Follow your DNA where it doesn't deny the right of others to follow theirs.
be as politcally correct as you can but be not afraid to confront issues for fear of being tagged.
And of course. Aspire to allow other cultures to be practised beside your own without trying to impose your implied superior culture on them - for to do so is to deny folk their authenticity.

Hamlet certain aspects of your supposed morality is just immorality dressed up in well-sounding phrases. (Act 3 Scene 1 verse 560 -690)

Col, well you didn't answer my questions, even avoided them. But I'll indulge your question(s) to me nonetheless.

No I do not believe in segregation, but I don't believe in the mono cultural ethnoracial Eurovision being promoted here in various forms - or the liberal melting pot asimilationist position. You are correct in stated that it is a journey, but I’m sure you would agree we all need to be able to define ourselves and subjectivities on the map before we all venture forward.

I see no sign of any evidence that white Australians actually know the difference between nationalist sentiment and their culture

This provide sound reasons to me on why there's obviously amazement and rage being expressed by many in this forum that people like Salam and I are able to foster ideas about what Australian white people and culture is about - without their authority or sanction.

As long as white culture (expressed vicariously here) is the defining cultural framework for white and 'ethnic' transactions (sets the limits on all thought about human relations, there can be no prospect for human equality or assimilation.

It’s interesting to me that white Australians often think of their Scottishness, Irishness etcetera before they think of their whiteness - but then only desire ethnic others to think about how well they are assimilating their racial or ethnic identity into this unstated whiteness. We can only ever be ethnic, Indigenous, Muslim, Asian and so on in ways in which we articulate our Australianness.

The liberal belief in a universal subjectivity ("we are all equal so get on with trying to be equal you ethnic people") presumed racism will magically disappear.

So before talking about models of assimilation, there needs to be critical inspection of this myth of sameness. I see a deep emotional attachment and investment here that either expresses itself through a need to lecture ‘ethnic’ people on how to become white, or alternatively, a pretension that ‘ethnic difference’ do not matter to them (when in fact it does).

My estimate is around 20% and very culturally diverse.

Hi all

Scout (posted 12:44:21 PM 18/1/06): response to queries:
"Telling the truth", under say the Holy Bible versus Qur'an? Their ideologies are different. The Bible doesn't condone lying & deceipt - it's condemned. The Qur'an? Not so - Surah 16:106 & 66:1-5 just two examples. Qur'an & Ahadith allow followers to selectively lie - for Allah, in war (jihad) & to their wives. Within Hindu (Vedas), for Buddhist (Triptaka or Dhammapada) - though "falsehood" references - don't condemn lying persay. Also Sikism, Parsism etc. Few clarify "truth" definition. Jainism's about the only other religion (except Christianity) which sets standards. Agnosticism & Atheism don't. Humanism & Post-modernism consider "truth" is relative (subjective) to individuals. If you think it's true, then it is.

I won't attempt a long explanation about my immigration philosophy. However, equate it to someone visiting your (physical) home for better comprehension. Expection? Appropriate conformity. Migrants start as 'guests'. Their bona fides & character before residency &/or citizenship ought to be a pre-requisite. Just because they come from subjugation or poverty doesn't give them inalienable rights which usurp ours. What about responsibility? Rights should be afforded as a result of responsibility & respect.

Your comment to "Chek", included, ".. it is accepting that their beliefs and values are just as valid as your own.", goes to the heart of the multiculturalism 'problem'. Multiculturalism assumes that all thoughts are of equal quality & validity. That's not the reality. [I will expand on the subject in my next communication - Human-Being response.]
Regards Sam NEWMAN & Shane WARNE: I agree. No sane person would suggest that they are Christians (& they deny it anyway), or very moral & ethical. Christians aren't sinless, viz "All man(kind) has sinned & falls short of the glory of God.". But they're supposed to realise error, confess (apologise) & repent (change the bad habit). Morons (like aforementioned) give all who live in a western secular Christian-based society a bad name. When sportsmen (& women) became "heroes" we've lost the plot - children emulate 'idols' thence their bad habits. Some adults are still children.

Cheers all