OK - my fault. I'll try this way:

By the merest accident of birth, I wasn't born into any religion or sect that gave a damn. If I had, I might have had the comfort of a safety net that included a good education and a guaranteed vocation. I might count my blessings at being part of a sub-group that had my best interests at heart, even before conception. That's pretty special.

But such good fortune comes at a terrible cost, when the price that must be paid is conformity to a particular world view. How can I bite the hand that feeds me? Shall I betray my group? Dare I refuse the dress-code?

So the great strength of a well knit sub-group is also it's main weakness. The stronger the ties, the more fossilised the thinking. Anarchy and free thought have naturally been suppressed. The crimes of the few taints the whole mob, because they are seen to behave like a herd.

I think that this was the thrust of the Stephenson piece. It could apply to any sub-group that works to stay aloof.

Right now, I get the feeling that John Howard wants to turn Aussies into a group of aloof Crocodile Hunters -

- danger, danger!

Peace - I am in agreement. My intention in my previous post was not to support any religious fundamentalist group, nor to dwell on historical events.

My concern is the current global situation where fundamentalists, who seemingly remain in the middle ages, commit mayhem by murdering innocent people. In addition, their violence extends to wiping out other Muslims of different tribes wrought by intolerance, hatred and revenge. This practice is alien to Australians! And we are called racists because we ask migrants to learn English?!

We are now witnessing atrocities committed by fundamentalists in the US and Britain. The perpetrators can not be excused as being illiterate since they were not!

Ghassan Hage's vicious whinge on those he describes as "assimilationists" is also a concern since he assures the reader that he has assimilated very well. Is he suggesting that he is more capable of assimilating than others? What is his problem? Lack of promotion?

I omitted to advise in my last post that I was raised in a minority group (5th generation Australian) since all neighbours were of ethnic background - namely Italians, Yugoslavs, German and Polish. Despite their difficulties at times in assimilating, they were not thin skinned nor do I recall any whinging and certainly not any terrorist activities. These good people were very keen to participate in communal activities, to learn to speak English and their reciprocal warm hospitality remains a very pleasant memory.

I trust the Australian Muslims have similar desires, however, they need to speak more loudly than the violent members of the Islamic faith and to cease taking offence at free speech! Their constant omission to denounce violence in the name of Allah is not reassuring!

I am sorry David Boaz but Stephensen’s article was fundamentally flawed. First of all the first Jews to enter Australia were selected by the best of British Judges and they started arriving on the FIRST FLEET!

Yes they arrived with the first Christians and helped to develop Australia's colonial society. Some of them were real crooks others just victims of a depression in a country (Britain) which was without unemploymenrt benefits.

Many became important parts of part of the establishment. The first policeman, the first Shakespearean actor, the first composer, the majority of the early publicans were Jewish. And it is possible for people to convert to Judaism, although that is a bit harder than becoming a Christian or a Muslim. It is not such an exclusive group.

But Jews like Buddists and Hindus don't push conversion because they believe that divine favours are given to all good people regardless of their professed faith. That is why Asian cultures such as India, China and Japan have always accepted Jews.

To get back to the subject immigrants must accept Australian society but apparantly not the indigenous one. Australian values include Jewish values because they are a part of the founder group. Some of Australian slang has Yiddish origins. (ANU accepts a possibility that the word Cobber might come from the Hebrew Kaber meaning friend).

There is plenty of evidence that non-founder groups can also integrate well. Each group enriches the culture. As long as they fit in and don't try to push their ideas on others they are welcome as far as I am concerned.

It is interesting how Jews can be criticised for remaining separate yet how would they be viewed if they tried to convert all the others? Damned if you do and damned if you don't. It is the Christians who are the non-assimilating group expecting all the others to accept their faith

Great piece Ghassan,

One comment from me - on what you wrote about assimilationists:

"And this is, paradoxically, what they desire - deep down. They scare people off. They drive them away. They make them hide. They force them to live outside mainstream society. And having done that, they then start telling the very people whom they’ve excluded that they are living in ghettos and that their problem is that they are not assimilated enough.

This is exactly what happened to Indigenous Australians over the last 150 years.

Paradoxically, when we (Indigenous people) get educated, speak and write better English than they do, aspire to have social and cultural and economic benefits, speak out loudly about social justice issues - we are quickly labelled as not being authentically Indigenous anymore.

Where they really want us to reside is in a cultural vacuum that they control because this ensures that they never have to become culturally competent beyond their own mono-cultural safety zone. What a bunch of losers!

Lets us look at the opposite end of the spectrum to those ugly assimilationists: at all those who don't chose to reach a form of accommodation with the host culture. In the same way as any other binary system: ie male/female, straight/gay, fascist/communist. When you start calling one side ugly, then the other side must be very attractive.

After all, if assimilationists are ugly, then those who refuse to assimilate must be extremely attractive.

Like those who refuse to learn, or use, English, even though they were born here - yes, I have seen them in court, educated here but claiming that they need an interpreter. Very non-assimilationist, but very appealing in comparison to those ugly ones on the other side, according to you.

Or those who use their culture to justify mistreatment of women - comparing Australian women - as sluts - to women of their own culture who are paragons of virtue. Very attractive in comparison with those ugly assimilationists, according to you.

Those who maintain dual citizenship, so that if things get uncomfortable for them here they can always run home. Very seductive in comparison to those who show their assimilationist ugliness by asking loyalty to the country that has accepted 'the other'.

We live in a democracy, that means that if someone wants to express the viewpoint that assimilation is best way towards the future, then they are allowed to say that.

Or are you attempting to deny the 'ugly' their democratic right to free speech?

Why not accept that there is ugliness on both sides, that both sides have an argument that they feel is worth putting forward, and calling someone ugly is just another form of flaming? Attack the policies, the attitudes, not the person.

That is a major value of Australian culture - freedom of thought - and speech.

Hamlet, you beat me to it. Ranier and Ghassan are angry indeed and have gotten little ole me, quite perplexed!

Now, let's see, would not the opposite to assimilationist be anti or non-assimilationist.

Gawd, so what's the definition of that?! Segregationist? Apartheid? Separatist? You should know Ranier since you as an "authentical indigenous" claim you are better educated than "them", meaning the assimilationists.

Strewth - here I go again. What's the definition of "authentical indigenous", Ranier?

Is it a full-blooded Aborigine; half caste or quarter caste?

If you are half caste or quarter caste, does that not mean that you are 50 or 75% something else?

Blimey, so why don't you mention the rest of your ancestry? Should one part of your ancestry be more important that the other?

I'm really wondering why you're all revved up, Ranier? No doubt you were educated by assimilationists - weren't you? And as you claim, to a standard superior to that "bunch of losers".

Ah Hah, perhaps I see more clearly. You've had fun exploiting all those assimilationists who so badly want to see everyone participate in this community by learning to become good Englishers and adopting the customs whilst retaining their own culture - true?

My black fella mates tell me that they are wary of the Aboriginal elite who are stirring up their brothers and sisters.

Do you see yourself as the elite, Ranier? Better get over it and stop your damn sookin'!!

Now there's a thought - perhaps you'd enjoy living in Zimbabwe or the Sudan. You wouldn't be bothered by those dratted assimilationists over there - would you?