I believe you are correct. If Australia has values and culture, it is what we are and believe in today, not what we were 10, 100 or 200 years ago.

Our history is important. We need to know what made Australia we live in today.

My background is 4 or more generation Australia on all sides. I have inherited French, Irish and English blood. My religious background is both Catholic and Protestant.

Most of my ancestors where free settlers.

From nearly the beginning, Australia was enriched by many cultures, especially after WWW2.

It is this wonderful mixture that makes us an unique country in the world, not how we were originally settled.

Multiculturalism is a ‘dirty word’, and would have been whether or not 9/11 occurred. There is no connection between that event and the deliberate, undemocratic act of an official policy nobody except a few wanted – one which I clearly remember hearing about early one morning on the radio. It was going to be, and that was it. No consultation with ordinary citizens.

If multiculturalism were so good, we wouldn’t still be arguing about it 40 years later. Of course the people who forced it on us will say that they were right to commit such an outrageously undemocratic act, and that those who still oppose it are dinosaurs. Be that as it may, anyone who doesn’t see that multiculturalism is the most divisive issue in Australia has to be naturally or deliberately obtuse.

Yes, Australians were British subjects until 1948. But, the suggestion that we ‘only became “Australia” about 58 years ago’ shows appalling ignorance. Australians became Australians a very short time after arriving here. They had to, or the three, main, very different groups, English, Irish and Scottish would have started killing each other. The Celts were barely though of as ‘British’ by the English, which makes the early and successful creation of our Australianess something to be admired, not disparaged.

Only some of us ‘struggle … to articulate a national identity’, Ms. Tay. And, plese,do not tell us that we should not ‘hark back’ to our pioneers and folk heroes and think of our heritage.

You and your heritage are welcome here. But do not try to deny that this country was settled by the British government, and that our version of British laws and beliefs will always be part of Australia’s history and psyche, regardless of multicultural waffle.

'Australia's cultural diversity policy promotes acceptance of, and respect for, our cultural diversity. Our culture embraces Australian-grown customs and the heritage of Indigenous Australians, early European settlers and more recent migrants who have all contributed to making ours the diverse society it is today.

The freedom of all Australians to express and share their cultural values is dependent on maintaining balance between unity as well as diversity, and responsibility as well as rights. All Australians are expected to have an overriding loyalty to Australia and its people, and to respect the basic structures and principles underwriting our democratic society.

These principles are:

The Constitution
Parliamentary democracy
Freedom of speech and religion
English as the national language
The rule of law
Acceptance and equality. '

'...tautological humour...' Hardly. The above quote is from the Federal Government's Policy on Multiculturaliam.

The author and her family are an example of what that policy has given Australia. We should celebrate that.

The author should understand the people of the times of Paterson, the Lawsons (Both Louisa and Henry) and McKellar regarded themselves as Australians, not British. They also revelled in their diversity, even though by comparison to today it was limited. However, over the years, from those origins, we learned and changed those things we found wanting. The most notable change from that time is our newly aquired tolerance. Our acceptance and inclusion of the best of cultures without the total rejection of the British heritage.

From personal experience, today's children are probably better off learning Latin. Yep, it will require a huge measure of cultural diversity and acceptance to understand that point of view.

As Leigh has pointed out, after 40 years of multiculturalism we’re still being told how good it is. Are there any reports of Australians demonstrating in the streets demanding more multiculturalism? Have any federal ministers been kidnapped with a promise of their being set free contingent on more of this madness known as multiculturalism?

If our multiculturalism is so hot why hasn’t Peru asked us for the blueprints? Hands up all Africans who seek eudaemonia! I see many hands. What is stopping Ghana from implementing multiculturalism and ending the anomie that grips the African continent?

What concerns me is the motivations behind multiculturalism. To be apparently enriched by diversity sounds a lot like white Australians are really quite boring and dull, which I find quite offensive.

The other motivation behind the M.C sham is the supposed benefits to the economy. So where is my millions? I don't feel at all obligated to SUPPORT a social policy that doesn't really benefit MEEEE.

Hi Leigh,

You and your heritage are also welcome here in Australia. But please, don't try to foist your foreign "British beliefs" on the rest of us. We Australians can make up our own minds about how we want to live and we don't need the likes of you to decide for us.

I don't know why so many people seem to think that multiculturalism means rejecting or denying British heritage. Multiculturalism means you're free to embrace your heritage(s) - all of them. Or, as our Prime Minister put it as recently as this week, words to the effect that being Australian doesn't require you to give up the place in one's heart for your "mother country", if you so desire.

So multiculturalism means that British heritage may be admired, celebrated and respected as one amongst the many to be found here. And as we all know, British cultures wasn't the first on the island. :0)

Now, that hardly amounts to a "denial" of the role of the British government in developing the Australian nation, or a "denial" of the importance British heritage in the psyche of many, but not all, Australians.

And what, Leigh, is so "undemocratic" about a multicultural policy that allows all Australians to cherish their respective backgrounds?

Multiculture is as dead as the DoDo's, it just hasn't had the decency to disappear.
All it has achieved in this country is tribes doing tribal things. There is nothing in it to bind us, it is opposite ,it divides us and in the long run it will lead to real trouble when those who come from a violent, belligerant background want that background to be the norm here. Because that is the only thing they understand.
I am thankful for the good Australia I and my children grew up in. Unfortunately the next descendants will not have it as good. It has been spoiled .Such a shame.

So, the usual disagreeable patronising nativist rants from the great gatekeepers of Angloceltic Australia on OLO, Leigh, Keith, Sage, hells angel, …and the rest of you who haven’t yet laced up your Romper Stomper boots. Go for it, guys, put in the boot! Agnes Tay may not be Muslim or Middle Eastern but, hey, she’s a woman, and she has a Chinese surname, and there are four of you and just one of her, so she’s fair game !

You are not just bullies, guys, you are ignorant:
1. None of you responded to Agnes’ clincher demographic fact: “But what are we being asked to assimilate into? The 2001 census reports that 65 per cent of Australians have non-Australian ancestry. The majority of us have an “ancestry”, a cultural history through our parents which is non-Australian.” . Well ?

Ghassan Hage was right about you guys (in OLO and NM a few weeks ago) – you are not a majority , you are an out-numbered, assimilationist xenophobe minority, and your only asset is that your spiritual inspiration is the master of rat-cunning, our present PM . Were Howard not feeding your juices, you would be like Daleks with the power switched off, whirring round in ever-decreasing circles. The fact is, most Australians already ARE multicultural - it is not a theory or doctrine or ideology, just a genetic fact of our great country. (part 1 of 2)

(part 2 of 2)
2. All of you, like your Grand Wizard, are now trying to run Australia on the politics of fear; to make every person who hasn’t quite “passed “ into your little self-selected Anglo-Celtic club feel afraid that they haven’t made it, that they may not yet quite fit in.

But folks, don’t be scared, because you see, these guys are bluffing! When you subtract everyone they want to make feel a little scared - not just the Muslims, and not just darker-skinned people indigenous to Australia or from the Indian subcontinent, but East Asians as well, and hey, why not Greek and Italian and Spanish European Christians as well ? (read Ezequiel Trumper in New Matilda to see what that last group really think of Leigh’s and his mates’ impertinent claims) …You see, folks, when I add up all of these groups, and their many friends and relations of whom I am proudly one - hey, WE are the majority and Leigh and his mates the minority ! But relax, guys, I won’t hurt you, because I believe in the rights of minorities in a plural democracy.

3. And you just don’t get Australian history. We never were a harmonious Anglo-Celtic society here. We were in tension from the beginning, between aborigines and settlers, Anglos and Celts, Tykes and Prods …you cannot understand Vinegar Hill, the squatting and land issue, the Eureka Stockade, the bushrangers, the anti-conscription movement, the Labor movement, White Australia, aboriginal massacres, stolen children … without factoring in those tensions. Don’t hold up a golden age before multiculturalism, Leigh -it never existed.

Thanks, Agnes, for a dignified and interesting piece – and I apologise for Leigh, though I know he hates me to. Hang in there – our ideas will win, because they rest on truth and decency. (And, I knew and liked both your parents, Alice and Eugene ).
Tony Kevin

Let's look at the really best thing about multiculturalism - all the great ethnic foods that we can now find in our various restaurants. How many Greek, Italian, Thai and Mexican restaurants existed in your neighborhoods 10 or 15 years ago?

Our dining habits have changed enormously as these various cultures have come into our society over the past couple decades.

There was nothing wrong with having people from many cultures coming here.The problem was with the laisse-faire airheads who ran immigration.There was no quality control,nor standards of behaviour that were expected of newly arrived people.

As soon as we try to implement any standards,the loopy left scream discrimination.

Tony Kevin,

If it makes you feel good Tony, apologise for me as much as you wish. It won’t make a jot of difference; but, if it helps you feel like a big man, be my guest. The other targets of your attempt at being a hairy chest, helping the little woman, are probably as interested in your nonsense as I am. And, like me again, I don’t think they feel that they have any reason to apologise to Ms. Tay. She said what she thinks. We said what we think. For an ex-diplomat, you seem to have trouble with freedom of speech and democracy, Tony.

It is noted that you have a personal connection with Ms. Tay. Perhaps you should start having intercourse with people with whom you do not agree – if only just to test your smug theory that you are right, and we are wrong. As a fairly ordinary type of bloke, I have mixed with all types of people, and I know that not everyone agrees with what I think. You should try broadening your list of acquaintances. It will be quite a shock for you.

But of course, Tony, it will never happen. You don't seem able to direct your criticism directly at your target - merely talking across the sujbect of your disdain to someone else, as though the bad guy doesn't exist. You have all hallmarks of a person who has never left, and never will leave, his own dunghill.

If there has been a large impact from the likes of Sept 11 and other terrorist acts, it is that public speech has been a little more freed up from the politically correct spiral we were headed down. Since I was a child, most people I know have privately voiced the opinion that there are problems with multiculturalism. But this view wasnt publically acceptable. At least now, those that do believe this have a chance to speak out without being decried as racist pigs. Some might be. But others are genuinely concerned as to how a bunch of people of very different beliefs and values, and some from backgrounds that have racial hatreds of each other stemming back centuries, are able to live along side one another, unless we can get them to agree to a core set of values and beliefs. A true multicultural society would have greeks and macedonians, irish and english, israeli and palestinian living in the same street and getting along well. That's called a pipe dream. Its just not in most human nature to be that tolerant. I dont care what background you are from - there are simply very few people that can live up to that ideal. Thats why multiculturalism doesnt and cant work. I do believe though that it can be made to work in some cases, where the people involved are not too different, and changes are brought about over a long period of time. Again, its basic human nature to resist change and despise those that bring change on us. Immigration has brought a lot to our country, there is no denying that. But we need to be careful about the mix and timing. There should never be an open door to just allow anyone in. Its not about racism or supremism. Its just good cautious policy with an eye to harmony.

Multiculturalism is not about food, music, literature etc. Culture is all about world view, that is, where does the idea of 'the good life' lie.

The Australian political and legal systems reflect the culture from which they sprang, that is, the individual as a a citizen, not a subject, and not a part of some sub grouping. All are to be treated as equal before all aspects of the law, for instance, one person one vote.

However other cultures take a very different world view, that is, that the individual does not exist except as part of a 'cultural' group, and it is that group's perceived well being that is more important than the 'individual'.

At a basic level this can be represented by the idea of arranged marriages. In 'the West' individuals are free, within certain legal limits, to partner with any other individual. In many cultures this idea is abnormal, hence any legal support of true multiculturalism in this country would be in support of arranged marriages, by law.

Multiculturalism, in its deeper sense, also means different laws applying to different people, according to their culture. For instance, tribal law, sharia law, and the like.

Do we really want to see others in our community subject to different laws than we are subject to?

I would go so far as to say that the principles of anti-discrimination and multiculturalism are in direct opposition to each other. Anti-discrimination is all about the individual and their rights, multiculturalism is about group rights, and the rights of cultural groups to include, exclude and treat members of a group differently to the way outsiders are treated. That is why so many exemptions to anti-discrimination laws have been granted to cultural groups.

So either we have a society that is just to all, meaning no multiculturalism, or an unjust society with multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is against the individual, as it privileges groups, rather than advancing individual rights.

Tony Kevin

I see you include me in a list of people with whom you disagree. However I think you've missed something.

I advocate multiculturalism as stated in the official policy. Is there something wrong in that? Pray tell how that makes me a 'great gatekeeper(s) of Angloceltic Australia'?

I advocate, by reading, at least a little deeper knowledge of the people who founded and defined early Australians? Is there something wrong in that? Pray tell me how that makes me an 'assimilationist xenophobe'?

I advocate celebrating the inclusion of Ms Tay, her family and their histories into our multi-culturalist country. Is there something wrong in that? Pray tell me how that makes me an ignorant bully?

I don't really expect an answer. You've ears but they are not listening. You've read my posts without using a modicum of comprehension. Because I don't appear to measure up to your unstated idea of multiculturalism you abuse me. Your hatefilled diatribe had more invective, namecalling and abuse than any post so far.

Is rational reasonable discussion beyond your ability?

Ms Tay might well be embarassed by your ideas if this is the standard of 'truth and decency' your ideas 'rest on'. Ms Tay's article clearly states her ideas and it resonates she does have a fair grasp of truth and decency. Comparing yours and Ms Tay's reveal a massive chasm in both.

Ah, so the:

" 1. None of you responded to Agnes’ clincher demographic fact: “But what are we being asked to assimilate into? The 2001 census reports that 65 per cent of Australians have non-Australian ancestry. The majority of us have an “ancestry”, a cultural history through our parents which is non-Australian.”

Raises its ugly head again.

This deserves a little examination.

For instance, quoting from Census figures: English was the only language spoken at home by 79.1% This tends to indicate that Australia is not 65% 'non Australian', doesn't it?

More than 90% of people were either born in Australia or in countries with similar cultural backgrounds - ie NZ, Europe, North America.

The idea of 65% of Australians having non Australian ancestry is interesting, because it claims that if an Australian has one parent who is born overseas then this virtually wipes out the idea of the other parent being born here.

But lets say that if even half that figure of 65% have one parent born in Australia and one born outside, then the figure with Australian ancestry must be around 67%.

Lets also consider that perhaps half of those overseas born parents come from 'European' cultures, all of a sudden we have around 83% of people with Australian or European ancestry. Sounds a bit different to 65% having non-Australian ancestry, doesn't it?

In fact, the vast majority of Australians are of basic European ancestry and culture, with similar values different to those of Asia and the Middle East.

Statistics can be used to argue almost anything, as long as they are massaged to support a particular viewpoint.

Multicultureism is about bringing all the people of different Nations who are living in Australia together to share each others experiences/cultures, to paint all Australians with the same British Paint brush, ensures all those with a longing for Anglo Celtic inheritance get what they want. to dominate our culture with Britishishness, we are a multicultural Nation, trying to change things , shows racism is alive and well among the British migrants, remember British migrants took decades to become Australian citizens , they would not give up Old Blighty, and they still have their flag dominating , the Australian Flag.

Multiculturalism is what brought us pretty much every item of food, clothing, political system and technology we use today. An active, evolving culture comprised of the best of what's on offer.

Australian governments from the 50's to the 90's practiced it, some actively promoted it, and we all benefited from it. It is only in the past 5 years or so I've witnessed the emergence of a redneck element who have no idea how fortunate Australia is, happy to have a dig at anything they find "confronting", and revelling in their new-found licence to practice a little ethnic self-superiority.

Go back to Cronulla, you lot.

Now Now Bennie. Do not racially stereotype the people of Cronulla and imply they are rednecks, because that would make you a bigot.

Your post is worriesome. I think there needs to be a differentiation between 'racism' and 'racial oppression'. The former can be perfectly legitimate, whilst the latter is always wrong. Racism has become an umbrella term to entrap those who don't hold certain political beliefs.

Think about this quote from Abraham Lincoln: A house divided against itself cannot stand. Multiculturalism is definitley a house divided against itself, divided and conquered (by nihilist rats).

Bennie says:
"Multiculturalism is what brought us pretty much every item of food, clothing, political system and technology we use today. An active, evolving culture comprised of the best of what's on offer"

Crap!

Any open, liberal innovative monocultural society would have done just as good or better.I don’t see Japan promoting multiculturalism but they haven’t missed out on any of the technology, food, clothing etc.

Multiculturalism has been a costly & divisive plaything of wantabes with limited talent

Fair point about Cronulla, angel.

Seems we need to define what MC it is. For some OLOers it's a chance to sink the slipper in to anyone who doesn't embrace Aussie culture. I see it as an effective way to get on, learn about other cultures, & get a little more tolerant of those who think differently. It doesn't bother me if someone doesn't learn to speak the lingo in 4 years. Why would it?

MC has become entwined with political overtones since the current government decided not to continue the policy of the previous government. Not itself a bad thing but it's become a tool for promoting the 'aussie battler' syndrome. MC is hardly a house divided (I believe it can give us exactly the opposite), it's only divisive when it suits someone with an axe to grind. It's also what we need to prevent becoming boringly homogenous. Like Japan.

Bernie
'MC has become entwined with political overtones since the current government decided not to continue the policy of the previous government.'
Quite eroneous. The Multicultural policy of Australia has been endorsed by all federal Governments since Malcolm Frazer introduced and championed it in the late 70's.
Have a read of the policy sometime, it can be found in the website of the relevant department.

Keith

All you pro-Multiculturalists should do us all a favour and read: The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945-1975 by Mark Lopez. you might learn something and come away with a bit more respect for the dissenters you keep vilifying.

A bit of reading here might not hurt you either. http://jimball.com.au/Multi_C.htm

The policy has been changed several times by the government since it came in un-voted for... in attempts to try and make it more palatable to the wider community. Most of whom don't know what it really is or what Assimilation or Integration are.

For those who think food or cultural appreciation are the big successes of Multiculti... go to a restaurant, read a book or travel overseas. We don't need this divisive policy for those things.

I can't see what the problem is with multiculuralism except that it's success is too dependent on community tolerance and understanding.

Perhaps it would work better in another country where they actually have these values.

Think about our unique Australian culture next time you pick a candy wrapper up off the sidewalk and put it into a trash can. Remember to wear your baseball cap backwards next time you go out for some burgers but don't upsize too often or you'll be like, in need of a makeover.

Leigh, you found my Achilles’ heel. Call me old-fashioned, but I do get angry when women or children are bullied. I don’t know Agnes Tay. If her parents were who I think they might be, they were both great Australians who enriched the public life of this country. That this young woman, whom I do not know, should be subjected to the abusive letter you posted on OLO Forum angers me.

Many Forum readers would recognize how offensively exclusionist your words are, “And, please, [Ms Tay] do not tell us that we should not ‘hark back’ to our pioneers and folk heroes and think of our heritage. You and your heritage are welcome here. But do not try to deny that this country was settled by the British government …”. Leigh, if this is your idea of civilised discourse, it is not mine. It is actually dog-whistling.

I reject your claim to pronounce on Australian identity, setting yourself up as a gatekeeper of our shared country. You call for “freedom of speech and democracy”, but pretend not to see how your letter condescended to other human beings who are as much part of Australia as you or I are. I’m a fairly ordinary type of bloke too, and I have mixed with all types of people over a long rich life. One thing I learned is that it’s a waste of time trying to persuade racists or cultural exclusionists that their prejudices are wrong. It is like trying to debate anti-semitism with a visceral anti-semite: the conversation always breaks down in mutual incomprehension and distaste. In any case Forums are not conversations of that kind. We both know I won’t convince you and you won’t convince me. We are writing for other readers, appealing to their sense of logic and fair play. I can stand the heat in this kitchen - can you?

This recent piece , by Ezequiel Trumper in New Matilda - “Australian values: the view from Howard world”
http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=1819&HomepageID=161
illuminates how hurtful your kind of language is to ordinary, decent Australians of multicultural background

I think a lot of people are confusing tolerance with multiculturalism

Having access to fifty different restaurants, or styles of cuisine, is not an exclusive feature of mc.
Being able to celebrate different festivals is not an exclusive trait of mc
Being free to practice your religion is not rooted in mc
They have more to do with liberalism & democracy.

People coming to this country from where ever, in time, will mix & merge -especially the young

What mc try’s to do is artificial maintain/entrench old divisions

Lets apply some of the free market, open competition, anti-protectionist, and remove barriers & subsidies thinking, which is prevalent in economic circles, to culture.

AGNES

you said:

"The 2001 census reports that 65 per cent of Australians have non-Australian ancestry"

I don't know which census you are reading, but it sure is not the 2001. The figure you gave is closer to the ACTUAL Australian ancestry of current Australians.

I've added up ALL Migrants from all countries, and they still did not come to more than about a third of the population.

from B05A in the spreadsheet.

"Australian" ancestry 6.7Million
English/Scottish/Irish Ancestry 8 Mllion.

On those 2 figures ALONE we have 14.7Million out of 18million.
Given that the 'Australian' ancestry clearly came from the English/Scottish/Irish ancestry due to history, I'm WONDERING what agenda you are peddling ?

Making legal points about the time of McKella and Paterson and trying to 'dhimmify' us as 'British Subjects' is probably the fastest way to self alienation I can think of.

If we talk about Chinese history, do you seek to identify with the cruelty of the oppression of the Tibetans ? The various ethnic groups in China which sought to oppress the other lesser groups ?

Are you suggesting we have no identity which emerged during the times of Patterson and McKella ?

To quote Joh "Let me tell you something" If you understood McKella's poem 'My Country' you would understand the true meaning of being Australian. Compare Stanza 1 with Stanza 2... between those lines 'ETHNICITY' faded and 'AUSTRALIAN-NESS' emerged. She did NOT try to remain 'Scottish' she became AUSTRALIAN and if you don't wish to....... then.... by all means go and represent some poor oppressed Chinese kicked out of their home by the current government there.

I (as a Christian) find the box hill south "Chinese Evangelical Church" to be a racist name. Are 'Chinese' Christians more special ? :) Why not 'BoxHillSouthEvangelical Church' where most members 'happen' to be Chinese. I can live with that.

Tony,

OK, Tony. It is quite clear that you as set in your ways and beliefs as I am. There really is no point in any further discourse between us. I reject any idea you might have of my ‘offensiveness’. If you and others find what I said in my post offensive, so be it. I don’t really care what you think. Like Hezbollah in its conflict with Israel, I’m sure that you think you are right and a winner. Well, I think I am right; I don’t care about winning – I just have one vote every 3 or 4 years, as you do.

I’m certainly right about the early evolution of Australian identity. Read John Hirst on the subject.

You claim that demons like me are in the minority. Strange, then, that the Howard government has managed to keep winning over the past decade with the policies you hate so much. Eventually, there must be a change; but to gain government, the Opposition will find that it has to fit in with the majority, not with you and other malcontents, to achieve that. I cannot know what you think ‘good’ government is, but it is doubtful that such a thing exists in reality.

I am not a racist or cultural exclusionist as you suggest. But there is not much point in trying to convince you of that. Anyone, like you, who thinks he can ‘apologise’ for someone else just because he doesn’t agree with that person’s point of view, has reached the peak of arrogance, and is beyond rational discussion.

Yes, Tony. I can stand the heat. It seems that you, like a few others who are on a mission here to put everyone else on the ‘right’ track, would like people who disagree with them to drop out. It’s not going to happen with me, Tony. I don’t like bullies, and I will not bow down to them.

If you are as happy with your opinions as I am with mine, you are a very happy man

I don’t think multiculturalism works because some people don’t tend to want to blend or integrate into Australia, they just create little replica’s of their own country and it alienates and divides people and causes hostility.

I think September 11 did affect some people, I know it affected my husband and family. My husband is of Lebanese background (Catholic but generally people don’t ask) if you are dark and of Middle Eastern appearance, then that his enough! It’s not that he was physically or verbally abused as he is a big man but it was the ostracizing and looks that hurt and did the damage. You live in Australia for over 30 years you make it your home, you totally embrace the Australian culture and ways even to the point of alienating those of your own background and it matters none, you still get treated like a criminal if you look a certain way.

The biggest problem facing Australia has to do with tolerance. You see when tolerating there is no obligation for you to be kind, polite, respectful or nice. Bullies have a particularly interesting way of tolerating those that they don’t like and the law allows them to do it.

Now you see this proves my point...

"I don’t think multiculturalism works because some people don’t tend to want to blend or integrate into Australia, they just create little replica’s of their own country and it alienates and divides people and causes hostility. "

Jolanda, like many, doesn't have a clue about what Multiculti is.
It is not Assimilation or integration.
You don't have to blend anything.
Yes they create their own enclaves, and it alienates, divides and causes hostility. So much for social cohesion and strong society.
A housed divided upon itself can never stand.

The cracks in the Multicultural policy have been getting bigger for years. Only the tolerance and patience of the "Australian" society has allowed the experiment to last as long as it has without too much upheaval. Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance... and is hardly something to base a society on.

We are now seeing both that tolerance and patience running out. Just like it did at Cronulla... you can put up with abuse for only so long then you must take a stand.

This writer do not care,about this useless debate,about multi/pombackground bulldust,the only culture this country has that this writer thinks is real,is that of the original inhabitants,as for the so called,Beer/suntan/footy/slang culture,mate that is just not culture

T800. I guess it is how you interpret multiculturalism that determines how you see it. I had always believed that it meant that in Australia you could practice your culture and ways as Australia is diverse and accepting and tolerating of difference. This is what people coming here were told so you really can’t blame them for thinking that there was no expectation that they integrate or assimilate, they were in essence lied to.

My parents came from Spain nearly 40 years ago and totally embraced the Australian culture and ways and still today my mother is forever grateful for what Australia provided for her family and for the opportunities that she has had.

CULTURAL IMPERIALISM, RACISM and SOCIAL IDENTITY.

Its a funny thing about ‘people’......they obtain their self awareness from the group they grew up with. All the cues.. when to do or not do something,... what to say, when to say it.
What we do when babies are born, people are married, get sick...die...It’s called ‘culture’.

One such striking cultural value of Australians is the award for ‘Best and FAIREST’ in footy.
I’ve just chatted with some Americans...and the idea is quite foreign to them. They are only familiar with the idea of ‘winning’ where the referee keeps things ‘fair’.

The China Inland Mission began with an English Doctor going to China to bring the Gospel of Salvation to them. They aimed to establish ‘Chinese’ churches, run by and supported by and grown by CHINESE.

James Hudson Taylor (CIM founder) DRESSED in Chinese clothes. He GREW a pigtail. He IDENTIFIED with the local cutlure. He did NOT try to give birth to a little chunk of Christian Cultural England in China. During the first decades of the work, they buried more of their own children than they saw converts. Today there are tens of millions of Christians in China.

The British government and colonial forces took a different approach. They tried to bring ‘England’ to China.

The Boxer rebellion in China was against “Foreign Devils” and their cultural and economic imperialism.
The Lambing Flat rebellion in Australia was against ‘Chinese devils’ and their opium, language and culture.

Culture and identity are important to people. Failure to understand this, and to act inappropriately is to repeat the same mistakes which CAUSED both the Boxer and the Lambing flat rebellions.

Agnes. “Australians did not exist in LAW” ? I’ll share you a secret..they existed in their minds and hearts, which is where it COUNTS. Was that little sentence an exercise in cultural genocide? Because it sounded like you don’t want to admit there is such a thing as ‘Australian’ consciousness.

Are you going to bring up ‘Chinese’ Australians or.. ‘Australians’ of Chinese ancestry ? Its an important point and I hope you answer it.

David

It was evident from Ms Tay's article. She'll raise Australians...open-minded ones.

Jolanda wrote:

T800. I guess it is how you interpret multiculturalism that determines how you see it. I had always believed that it meant that in Australia you could practice your culture..

Jolanda, in Australia it is a little bit more than that, and the same time it isn't really multiculturalism.

Australian governments have set up 'Multicultural Resource Centres', at taxpayer expense, to enable people to practice their cultures. They have funded other projects and initiatives, seldom giving them the label of grants for cultural reasons, but have hidden some of these in, for instance, some of the precursor programs to the work for the dole programs. Schools that inculcate values other than the host culture's values are also funded.

The government has resisted, however, the implementation of other changes that would bring about true multiculturalism.

India, for instance, has a much more pervasive version of multiculturalism, in that different cultural groups are subject to different laws. Even Canada has a different basis of law, based on Continental law rather than common law in Quebec. Surprisingly, Louisiana, USA, has a similar, Continental, system, rather than the system based on common law used through the rest of the USA.

There are pressures for sharia law for people of Islamic culture, and similar laws for people of Hindu background, particularly in the area of family law. This hasn't stopped Islamic or Australian Aboriginal people from defying laws against marriage under the age of 18, it is just that no one has ever been prosecuted from those cultures for breaking those laws.

Your parents' culture, originating in Spain, is not so different to the host culture. They would have found churches that they could worship in, and the Spanish Civil War is evidence of the struggle to have Spain become a democratic country back in the late 1930s. Whilst the details of what you would describe as culture are different to the host culture, the basis is the same: respect for equality under the law, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and the individual as master or mistress of their own mind.

I hope people aren't suggesting that those with a surname like Smith, Watson, Brown or other typical anglo surnames are barred from learning how to cook Thai dishes or Italian dishes or putting together a nice curry. Are people saying that the Ryde School of Catering actively bars such people from attending? And are people suggesting that people with a surname like Ryan, Billings or Turner are not allowed to open an Indian restaurant or a Thai restaurant?

As for the cost of multiculturalism, S Rimmer put it at AUD$7.2 billion per year. Some people might find that acceptable but I reject it. I'd rather Mrs Turner get her hip operation pronto than to fund the Estonian community as they ponce about in their national costume on Black Tuesday.

LEIGH - statements of fact regarding the origins of Australian citizenship in our legal history do not show "apalling ignorance". Our national identity has been an issue in recent press - including what exactly are Australian values and what it means to be Australian. I love The Man from Snowy River - but I don't see the pioneers all that relevant to our future. I don't deny Britain's colonisation of this country (why I pointed out the fact about citizenship). You either have difficulties reading or enjoy misquoting.

TONYKEVIN - your comments and support are appreciated. It's a shame that there is so much rhetoric here and not enough meaningful dialogue.

COUNTRYGAL - I understand your sentiments. A fractured nation is not what I want for my children either.

HAMLET - your comments re individual versus group are interesting. But I am greatly troubled by your views on the ABS stats - since when do countries "similar" to Australia count for Australian? Since when does an European heritage count as an Australian heritage? There are significant differences between living in Australia than say, living in London. Are your sentiments that white anglosaxons (where ever they are from) are close enough to white Australians and, therefore, Australians?

BOAZ_David - My source for 65% of Australian's having non-Australian ancestry is http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/popflows2003-4/index.htm
Since when did English and Irish come close enough to being Australian? Don't accuse me of peddling an agenda - I'm loud and clear about where I stand. Most Australians come from somewhere else. Ireland is SOMEWHERE ELSE. England is SOMEWHERE ELSE. Loud and Clear?

How can we discuss issues of nationality without raising the point of when Australian citizenship existed in law? Please.

KEITH - many thanks - yes, I am raising Australians. I consider myself Australian. That's my point. When you talk to children of migrants, they will be amongst the proudest and grateful Australians you will ever meet.

Thanks to all for reading and commenting.
Agnes Tay (unable to change username - didn't think I would be writing articles when I joined up :))

Having finished trumpeting British beliefs for reasons unknown, Leigh is now promoting promiscuity, saying "you should start having intercourse with people with whom you do not agree."

OK, I’m cheekily taking this out of context.

This brazen pickup line is just for a special "not agreeing" someone.

(References: Leigh 22sept2006 12:28PM and 23Sep2006 09:35 AM)

Agnes Tay

No need for thanks, though it is appreciated.

Your point was well made and understood.

And yes you are right...my children too are 1st generation Aussies and are 'amongst the proudest and grateful Australians you will ever meet.'... and high achievers also!

Regards Keith Kennelly

Agnes wrote:

HAMLET - your comments re individual versus group are interesting. But I am greatly troubled by your views on the ABS stats - since when do countries "similar" to Australia count for Australian? Since when does an European heritage count as an Australian heritage? There are significant differences between living in Australia than say, living in London. Are your sentiments that white anglosaxons (where ever they are from) are close enough to white Australians and, therefore, Australians?

Agnes, I really don't care about the colour of a person's skin, or their 'ethnicity', it is culture that matters.

For instance, an African-American may share the same cultural values as an Australian of say, Chinese heritage, which may be very different from a white part anglo Sud Afrikaana who has a hatred of blacks and 'mixed race' people.

But in general terms, 'Australian' culture shares more characteristics with European, in particular North West Europe, than with other parts of the world. Australian culture is not 'unique' to this land mass, it is a manifestation of an overall European culture that includes in its tenets: equality, the rule of law, not using 'patronage' to get ahead in the same way that it is used in many Middle Eastern and Asian countries, an abhorence of official corruption.

Getting baack to the African-American example. Here is a person who is raised in a democracy and has a similar world view to a European, whereas even some people from South American, due to that continent's mixture of cultures - indigenous, imported European - particularly Spanish and Portugese, and African cultural influences imported with slavery, has caused a different world view than that of the Northen American continent.

A classic example is the way that Australia has been berated by Asian politicians for the criticism of'Asian values', when it is actually 'Asian values' conflicting with 'European values'.

So yes, Australia does have more in common with the cultures Europe and particularly the British Isles than with other cultures.

Australia shares Shakespeare and Gothe more than Confucious.

Blackstone,

Be careful of what ABS statistics say. Given that we have just had the most recent census, I am quite able to recall that I put English and Scottish as my ancestry, despite the fact that at least on the English side it was my GG grandfather that immigrated in 1852. I am still of English descent, despite the fact that I was born in Australia (as have several generations of my family). My husband in the same census listed his ancestry as Irish, despite his ancestor arriving on the First Fleet. He also considers himself as Australian, and not Irish.

Stat's can prove anything, its just a matter of how you present it. If 65% of respondents said they were from a non-Australian ancestry, then I assume that 33% simply ignored the question (isnt the indigenous population around 2% - they are the only ones that can fully claim Australian ancestry). Get with it and learn how to properly interpret statistics, rather than manipulate them to prove an agenda.

I am a second generation Australian from parents who migrated from Lebanon during the civil war.

My father (who had traveled to Australia a few years prior) had learnt the language, but my mother did not speak English.

They didn’t like it here, they felt isolated, unwanted and were counting down the days in hope for the war to end, so that they may return to the family and friends they left behind.

The war did not end, not for a while and so they inevitably found themselves beginning a life and raising a family in Australia.

My mother claims now that she could not live in Lebanon, her home is now Australia and has been for over 30 years. She speaks English and has actively contributed to the Australian workforce since 1977.

I am a Lebanese-Australian.

I was born in Australia and my love for this country and my respect for its Indigenous people, the strength of our colonial history and all those histories that have passed undocumented, I consider to make up my national identity.
My ancestral culture is equally as important to me, and when I visit Lebanon I also feel at home, even though I do not have a physical home there.

My story is only one of 20 million people living in Australia

National identity is not simple; it is not black and white. We do not need this over exaggerated push for ‘Australian national values’ in order for everyone to be able to get along. What sort of society can only operate when individuals have to share common cultural traits? We should have a policy that tries to emphasize ideologies of tolerance and understanding between all citizens despite their ancestry. We should embrace people’s stories and their individual complex national identities. It is a difficult thing to do I will agree with you there. But thank God we have multiculturalism which creates a framework for cultural growth alongside the mainstream Australian culture. This secondary growth of culture is the backbone of our great country.

The Multiculturalism debate is over. It's over in Europe, where most governments are setting up tough new rules to stop, in all honesty, Islamic migration.

This is not because Europeans are racist, but because a large number of Muslims are. I could go through a hundred thousand examples to show this, and we all watch the news, read the newspapers for ourselves.

For too long, multiculturalism has been used to ignore racist cultures with racist traditions, like not swimming in the same pool as infidel inferiors.

An interesting note about this was on the ABC Four Corners last night. It was about a radical Christian group called the Bretherin, where the journalist had absolutely no problem with highlighting the inferior status of women in this cult, and attitudes towards outsiders.

If I were a Muslim watching that program I would have been offended as it offended all the tenets of the Islamic religion, i.e, the inferior status of women, polygamy, child brides, and so on.

But it's alright to attack such barbaric morals if the person or group practicing them are white.

This represents weakness on the part of the left, who have exactly the same prejudices as everyone else, they are simply too squeamish to say it because they either think they are an animal, or some sort of disabled freak they feel sorry for.

This is why those on the left, who are far more class-conscious than the rest of us, looking down on the working class, uneducated class, go all out on say, Fred Nile, for his Christian beliefs regarding homosexuals.

Yet, and I must have hassled the organisers of the Mardi Gras, as well as other Gay groups, that they should issue statements condemning Muslim clerics that preach gays should be stoned to death.

Unfortunately though, such an attitude is an official aspect of the Islamic faith, so would cause trouble. Why no floats of two Gays dressed as clerics kissing, while holding some Lesbians in burqa's on leashes, occassionally whipping them for showing their ankles?

Cowards.

To claim that the portrayal and views of the Islamic faith is a 'protected' and taboo topic in terms of Left wing opinion, is a gross ignorance of the views of western media, both the conservative right and left.

The political circumstances in contemporary society are typically the powers of the West (E.g Coalition of the Willing) abusing a new manifestation of 'fear' that comes in the form of the Islamic terrorist and more popularily, the whole Islamic faith. In this context I will agree that the left wing political ideology does not agree with that of US western powers, and hence takes up the fight for those that are the target of Capitalist western nations.

But this is merely a situational poltical environment. It's not like Marx was an Islamic sympythiser?

Instead this constant blurring of politics and religion is creating further confusion, at a time when religion is being falsly used to conceal acts of violence on a mass scale.

Christianity does get bagged out by Lefties, absolutely I agree. But I reckon Islam gets a pretty bad wrap too, and it's not limited to the Govt. funded channels, after prime time (ABC AT 9PM) It's breaking news all the time

Jules 21,

"Instead this constant blurring of politics and religion is creating further confusion, at a time when religion is being falsly used to conceal acts of violence on a mass scale."

Do you know just how much of a disservice you have done to those moderate Muslims (the real ones, not those who parade as though they are but make bigoted, vile comments all the time) who are trying to reinterpret Islam to suit the 21st century?

Why is it that you say this? Have you read the Koran? Obviously not. Islam has much violence in it, this isn't debatable, this is factual. From Islamic scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to historians, to very prominent Muslim clerics (the Grand Mufti of Mecca Islamic enough for you?), all say Islam is violent.

Some say it in a historical sense, which is factual. All the mid-east was Christian once, then Islam came, and spread itself by the sword.

If you actually look into it, you find that many Muslims are perversly proud of that time, as it was the fastest growing empire of all time.

The only way Islam can move forward is if we support the reformers, who often end up headless as it is, but these people are extremely courageous, and get upset when they're hard work of trying to convince Muslims that Sharia is evil and was meant only for the time of Mohammed and not now, is reduced to a one liner from mostly non-Muslims who, true to their typically "all cultures are equal crap" say rubbish like, "Islam isn't violent".

All that hard work for nothing.

There are many such scholars, including women too, doing such vital work. They need our support.

By saying that they're cause isn't even true, not only reveals an incredible ignorance, it is plain wrong.

Dear Jules

I urge you to re-consider the terminology u used to describe your identity.

Lebanese.....Australian ?

Why not consider yourself "Australian" (first) of Lebanese ancestry.

I almost fear to point this out, but the terms 'Italian' Australian, 'Chinese' Australian, 'Lebanese' Australian.. even 'ANGLO'Australian are all racist.

Why do I say "racist" .. I don't mean that in a malicious way, or to be unkind. Its just that a label like that suggests (by its grammar) that the most important thing is to be "Lebanese" or..'Chinese' etc..

I doubt we would ever have heard the term 'Anglo' Aussies prior to Cronulla.

So, I call myself "Australian of Anglo/Scottish Ancestry"
If my ancestry is of interest to the enquirer. But basically I'm 'Australian' .... there is no need to add an 'ethnic' tag, unless, dare I say it, we regard out ethnicity as something 'special' ? :) as in... a tiny bit better than other ethnicities ?

The order of the words is important in what they convey. If we mention Ethnicity first, it automatically suggests we regard it as more important than our Australian-ness.

If you married outside your ethnic group (which would be a great thing) would you say your children are 'Lebanese/Chinese' (or some other) Australians ? or.. Lebanese/Anglo/Scot/Irish/Welsh Australian ?
(just say you married a girl with a diverse heritage)

Lets all be Aussies, and leave our particular ethnicity behind.
I married an Asian, and my daughter is marrying a half aussie/half Maori... to me they are all aussies. Race does not matter.

Dear Agnes

you said:

My source for 65% of Australian's having non-Australian ancestry is http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/popflows2003-4/index.htm
Since when did English and Irish come close enough to being Australian?

Umm...since colonization.

Like this.

1/ 'Australian' in the first instance of course is our indigenous people
2/ Then, by virtue of history and colonization, 'Australia' the nation was born. The racial stock of which came mostly from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
3/ From these groups, came one group "Australian"
4/ "Non Australian" ancestry can only refer to those outside that loosely grouped set of point 3. Such as those arriving from European countries post 1945, otherwise it seems meaningless.

5/ With migration, we have 'new' Australians, from various ethnicities and cultures. But they came to an existing culture and they came presumably not to indulge in cultural imperialism :) Rather, to embrace that to which they were invited, and seek to fit in as best they could and thereafter identifying as 'Australians'

Now, with many many ethnic groups here, but still, when all of them are added, not accounting for more than 30% of the total population, it seems strange to have a policy of 'multi' culturalism.
'Australia' came to be out of 4 major caucasian cultures, but they did become 'one'.

Now, I hope to see intermarraige, between Traditional Australians and Asians, Greeks, Italians,Middle Eastern and a gradual but definite dissappearance of 'non' Australian cultures and races and the emergence of a more homogenous "Australian" race which includes genes from all migrant groups. This is suggestive that no particular race is 'superior'and that all are 'compatable'. I did it, (Asian wife) my daughter is doing it. (Caucasian/Maori husband)

In fact, I would like to see all 'chinese' blend/breed into the mainstream genepool as well.

In the process, I'm sure that the outcome will be a richer, more colourful, harmonious society.. to seek otherwise would be racist :)