I agree that Salam’s article wasn’t particularly earth-shattering and knew before I hit ‘comments’ that it would be attacked [deleted for flaming]. I sigh at the mindless inevitability of the same old merry-go-round ‘debates’ surrounding multiculturalism and really can’t be bothered to go into it again, so I won’t.

There was something in Salam’s article that did rouse me to comment though. I refer to two quotes in relation to the Australian flag:

“While another believes it causes disrespect among Indigenous Australians - despite us celebrating and recognising Aboriginal identity and heritage.” and “Nor does it represent an “exclusion” of Aboriginal identity and heritage.”

Unfortunately Salam has delved into an area of which she is obviously ignorant and should therefore not speak as though with some authority.

Australia Day is not a day of celebration by Aboriginals; it is a day of mourning. Aboriginal leaders don’t call January 26th Australia Day, they call it Invasion Day, and with good reason.

The Australia that is celebrated on Australia Day is 218 years old, completely negating anything worth mentioning prior to that, ignoring calls time and time again to recognise the original inhabitants of this land.

This Australia Day, we were shown the shocking image of an Australian Aboriginal BURNING the Australian flag. I think that sent a pretty clear message.

Cathy Freeman (our Cathy) also sent out a ‘shocking message’ when she carried both the Australian and Aboriginal flags on her victory run in the Olympics.

Aboriginals are NOT happy with the current state of affairs Salam. Please investigate properly before making such ignorant statements. Surely you mean “despite us PATRONISING Aboriginal identity and heritage”?

I am proudly Australian, 7th generation on my mum’s side. I am deeply appreciative of what it means to be Australian, deeply grateful of the opportunities it affords my children. I wish my pride wasn’t sullied by the blight of our past injustices on Australian Aboriginals and our present ingenuousness in dealing with them in the fair and just manner Australians would like to be identified with.

Rainier “what quantum formula you use to come to this longitudinal assimilation paradigm”

Who knows how long anything might take. Such a moment in time is not important and even if you did know when, what could or would you do about it?

As anyone capable of reasoning is aware, if, as a nation, we are to progress we need to focus as much on the journey and not just on the time of arrival at the destination.

Multicultural and Assimilation policies are about ensuring we are heading out in the right direction for that journey.

If pushed to speculate, “When” is more likely to be beyond 2200 than before. I know I will not see it, I do not expect to but some of us “think” beyond the duration or for the benefit of our own brief existence.

I guess if someone were to look at things from a “shallower perspective”, the considered visible horizon will always be closer, like 2007, 2020, 2035 or 2040

As for “final solution”

Assimilation offers no “final solution”. Assimilation is the acceptance of the consequences of changing realities resulting from the meanderings of free individuals.

The segregationist (those who fear the individual liberty associated with people mixing freely, as they wish) are those who promoted the “final solution” and relied on words like “White” to characterise their perverted fixation on the matter. They also postured the evils of racial superiority and the oppression of those who did not conform to the stricture of the master authority,

As you would have read from my “ad nauseum” posts, everything I support and everything I have ever stated is the antithesis of segregation and is a rejection of any master authority.

Rainier, My turn to ask the question, I have answered yours (above).

I would ask, do you support my “assimilative” view or do you feel your “values” align you with the “segregationists”?

I would appreciate your direct reply, else I will be left trawl through your posting history for your view.

Thanks for the support keith

Happy Australia day to Meredith and everyone else

Salam says

"I know what I will be doing this Thursday, and it does not include hiding behind my four walls in fear of being called a “wog" "

Why would you have this fear? Only a small, small minority would use this language. And those who add violence have been rounded up and punished. We have done all we can to get these ferals off the street for the benefit of all. Meanwhile we face an every growing wall of silence in rounding up ferals of lebanese descent that sarted with the Lee murder, so who has the most reason here to continue to live in fear?.

It is not good enough to say everyone wants these thugs arrested and punished when the very people that can assist police will not and the muslim community continues it's marriage of sorts to the extreme left who protect your communities "victimhood" by proesting every action by police to sort this problem out by ctricising such action as racist.

The Vietnamese community had similair problems but supported the law and rejected the patronising looney left wing. Even though nothing will ever stamp out criminal behaviour in any community there has to be SEEN support of laws if respect is to be gained.

Lets face it everytime the calls of Australians being racist have been loudest is in direct reaction to crime of people from middle eastern descent. From Edward Lee, to football riots, to gang rapes, to home invasions, to anti-social behaviour on trains.

Asians never jumped on that bandwagon and so their crime is seen as any crime, a matter for the police.

In my scimming of the posts, (some people do blahher) Nobody seems to have countered Thor's post and arguments that the riots were not about race. (sorry if someone has but I cannot read every Leftist moonbats post that are so ....boring.)

Law student using logic. And no retorts?

Go Thor!

The Big Fish, I suspect that the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

The underlying issue appears to be massive levels of anger and frustration resulting from a long term campaign of intimidation, assault, rape and racial abuse by a relatively small group of young guys generally identified as being of Lebanese ethnic origins but raised in this country. It is likely that their families are muslim and that these guys have picked up up a distorted version of muslim teaching about modesty without some of the other stuff which should counterbalance it. Nothing inherently racist about people getting upset over the behaviour of these gangs and the apparent inaction of the police, government and others who could have done something to stop it. It does appear from what I have read that the gangs are very racist but that is not the issue being challenged.

Where the riot became racist was when people of "middle eastern appearance" were targeted by the crowd regardless of there being no clear involvement in the gangs. My recollection was that some of the cries were in the vein of "Get the Lebs" or worse. I have no idea what proportion of the crowd was involved in that behaviour.

Maybe we need a broader term to describe those who put loyalty to their own sub group ahead of loyalty to the broader community, something that encompases those who treat their religion, culture etc in the same way a racist treats race. We don't seem to have such a term. A word that covers those muslim spokesmen who carry on about the "riots" and are in serious denial about the actions of the gangs. A word that encompases those who get very upset that western women have to cover up when visiting some muslim countries but who also get upset at muslim women who don't uncover in this country.

A lot of this stuff is not racism, rather it has many of the same characteristics of "me and my people first" that mark racism.

R0bert

I think that the Cronulla riots were not about how a particular race looks, my daughter called that Faceism, but the reputation that they have gained and how they act!

We need to expand the Australian vocabulary to differentiate between feelings and actions.

Yesterday we were watching TV and watching an Aboriginal man burn the Australian Flag and I said to my husband that out of respect it should be against the Law to burn the flag. We discussed the fact that it wasn’t against the law because of Freedom of Speech and I couldn’t help but wonder when did speech and actions became one?.

Of course in the case of the Aboriginal man burning the flag I do believe that he has justifiable good reason to burn the flag so in that regard I am glad burning the Flag is not against the law as Aboriginal people have already suffered enough. Maybe that’s why burning the flag is not against the Law as they know that People will stand up and support the Aboriginal people if they ever tried to prosecute them for burning the flag and the Government well, well they are scared so in order to protect themselves they allow anybody to burn the flag in the name of Freedom of Speech.

They should just have a clause that says only the Aboriginal People have the right and are allowed to burn the flag.