Dr Donnelly believes Western culture is "superior to the rest". Dare we say, 'Western culture....uber alles'?

I think Western culture has a lot going for it, but surely Dr Donnelly claims too much to state that "the very values of tolerance, compassion, openness and civility...are culturally specific and based on our Western heritage."

Since myriad examples of these qualities can be found in Chinese, south-east Asian, Pacific, native American, sub-saharan African, Buddhist or Hindu cultures, the claim is clearly false. Perhaps Dr Donnelly would like to clarify what he meant?

If we are to entertain the notion that certain values are "culturally specific" then we must confront the uncomfortable truth that the values of Nazism, Fascism and Soviet Communism are also "based on our Western heritage." Western culture uber alles indeed.

The problem with claims of such values being culturally-specific is that it sets up "values" as territory, to be divided between nations in line with imperial practice. Which is a great idea, if you long for the 19th century.

Maybe we need to entertain the possibility that tolerance, compassion, openness and civility are best served by refraining from making claims of superiority. How do we preserve our tolerant, compassionate, open and civil society by becoming intolerant, uncompassionate, closed and uncivil towards anybody who has other views?

Oh, isn't it so easy (and childish) to just tell others to live somewhere else rather than to actually engage in intelligent discussion on the issue?

Comments about peoples' taste in men are both rude as they are extremely irrelevant.

I cannot see anything in Marilyn's original post which suggest she hates Australia. Please people, get rid of the rhetoric, address the issue. She challenges whether or not Australia has a brutal and violent history. Fair challenge, I say. She does not declare her hatred for Australia.

mickijo says:

"By not respecting our values, you should have citizenship stripped and be told to go. We only want migrants who will be good citizens who abide by our laws and who respect our traditions."

Hilarious. Imagine this apppying to our convict founding fathers! What traditions, pray tell?

Marilyn Shepherd, you overstate your case about the treatment of Aborigines.

Aborigines were not first treated as "human" in 1967. In fact, from the first they were considered to be under the protection of British law, and there were white settlers hanged for killing Aborigines.

It's true that Aborigines were not all given the vote in 1901. However, you have to understand that it wasn't likely that they would be. You have to remember that in most Western countries it was only a highly-educated and wealthy elite who were thought responsible enough to vote. The debate about extending the vote to the working-class hinged on whether the working-class was sufficiently well-educated and prosperous to be part of the franchise.

Tasmanian (white) men were only given this trust as late as the 1890s. Was it really likely that all Aborigines, many of whom lived remotely from white settlements and had no English, would be thought eligible to vote? In what meaningful sense could such Aborigines engage in the political process?

As late as the 1930s there were still tribes of Aborigines who killed outsiders who stumbled into their territory. In one case in the Northern Territory, anthropologists from Melbourne were sent in to "make contact" and to persuade the Aborigines to discontinue the practice.

In general, the states did have the power to add Aborigines who were thought sufficiently integrated into mainstream society to the electoral roll and this did happen (most prominently with Aborigines who served in the armed forces).

It's legitimate to argue that the franchise might have happened earlier than 1967 or that more could have been done to integrate outlying Aborigines. But it shows a lack of historical perspective to think that any society in the world would have granted all Aborigines the vote in 1901 - the Australians of that era had already pushed democracy to the furthest extent then known.

Marylin,

Good on you, great posts. Can somebody please explain to me why love of one's country should eqaute to never ever criticising anyhting at all that country does? That's like saying that a truly loving parent is one that never ever tells his children that they did something wrong.

To be mindlessly accepting of anything Australia ever does is not love of country, to criticise our actions as a nation is not to hate Australia.

I think one of the ways we express our love for Australia is to recognise the mistakes that were made in the past to make sure they are never repeated, this makes a country stronger, fairer, aware of its history and learning from it, not to mention one which encourages open and robust debate (I thought that was one of "our" values, is it not?!).

Love of country, is to pride oneself in our achievements and success and to admit our mistakes, face up to them and correct them. That's what responsible adults do in their lives, I don't see why it should not apply to the way we think and feel about our contry.

"It is particularly instructive that we consider a zookeeper and a racing driver to be iconic."

Personally, I don't consider them to be that special, although I certainly don't have anything against them. I don't really know much about them, but what I do know tips them slightly to the positive side for me. That aside, I'm kind of glad that in this country we have to clutch at some boof-headed yobos for national icons. If a guy who speaks in a ridiculous accent, gets around in an even more ridiculous outfit and gets excited about large reptiles is the best or worst of it in this country, then that's fine by me. Ditto for a guy who likes to drive round a racing track. At least we don't have the laundry list of tyrants, raving mad artists and manic depressive composers that some regions of the world cling to. Likewise, whilst we've been silly enough to get involved in other people's silly battles and wars, at least we haven't inflicted such nonsense on ourselves. Australia certainly isn't perfect, but its highs and lows are generally less extreme than in most of the world, and I think that's what makes it what it is.

Excellent posts Marilyn Shepherd.

Mickijo:

The Vietnamese have the highest rate of Australian citizenship. The British have the lowest percentage and yet they make up the highest percentage of immigrants to this country.

They mustn’t feel patriotic. By your logic perhaps we should deport them back to England?

The article was nicely dressed up with fancy jingoism and tell-tale patriotism, cleverly disguised as a ‘new way’ of appreciating Australian-ness.

I love that I can critique Australia knowing perfectly well that it’s in its infancy and has a long way to go before it reaches the stage of Superiority and Perfection over others that Kevin has presumed already exists.

The truth is that history pervades our foundation, our senses and our existence. The claim that we are a democratic nation heeds no praise from me when one of our basic and essential human rights of freedom of press and communication is in jeopardy with the current monopolisation of the media by Rupert Murdoch and his tyrannic empire. Censorship and propaganda exists in our press on such a large scale that people are now resorting to the internet for their news because the chances of censorship, bigotry and bias are reduced somewhat.

If we want to claim British heritage then maybe we should emulate our “founding fathers” instead of leaning towards the US so fervently. Perhaps we should look at the way their press runs, the way the public sphere is structured and the immense success of their multiracial society. Not even the London bombings could severely shake the Brits in their boots and make them fear a collective people and religion like their convict counterparts. Perhaps we are too susceptible to those almighty powers that have set the example before us.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression…freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." (United Nations, 1997)

Yes even Germaine Greer is allowed to speak her mind. So buck up Australia and deal with it.