“In theory…..”

In practice, multiculturalism is entirely different, and now, event he instigators of the ridiculous policy are having second thoughts, including the Polish immigrant who was the big cheese initially.

Why this piece, saying nothing we don’t already know, but merely rehashing stuff we have had forced on us for far too long, was written, is anyone’s guess. Probably essay writing practice for the student author. A good essay, certainly, but the subject is passé

We do celebrate our diversity; we do it on Harmony Day and money to promote and celebrate that particular day seems to be plundered from the dental care budget. For the other 364 days we are asked to smile widely at our own broadmindedness while some migrants tell us why our culture is so offensive. If we have any doubts about how vile we are we can read the hate literature being distributed at an Auburn bookstore. (An interesting question arises at this point: if we are so vile why do migrants come to our shores?) If we express concerns our REPRESENTATIVES tell us that little can be done about such material. The minister responsible is wheeled out and he palliates our concerns with his oleaginous charm and his speech is sure to contain a liberal use of the word tolerance.

If multiculturalism is such a winning policy why are some countries slow to implement it? For instance some African countries look very monocultural to the casual observer. As amateur historian Muammar Gaddafi tells us some African cultures pre-date Christ by 3000 years. Having made all the mistakes possible by now, wouldn’t a 3000-year-old culture have discovered the winning formula of multiculturalism? Do they know something we don’t?

We shouldn't just tolerate diversity, we should embrace it.

Anybody who has studied biology, ecololgy or agricultural science knows that monocultures are vulnerable. Lacking diversity they lack the checks and balances that a diverse culture will contribute. Thus, in agriculture, monocultural crops can only be supported via huge inputs of chemicals, for instance.

The parallel with human society should be obvious.

Inevitably, in nature as in society and in capitalism, one species or organism will try to become dominant, to serve their own interests. But their interest is blinkered, and inevitably unstable and short-lived if they do succeed.

The debate going on now about Muslims in Australia is a rather boring repeat of similar debates we had over immigration of Italians, Greeks and others in the 1960s and Asians in the 1980s and 90s.

Multiculturalism is a very vexed issue. As the UK has shown, large numbers of migrants tend to form separate communities and remain apart. Assimilation is a dirty word but it will need to be re-examined, carefully and probably painfully. Globalisation has accelerated population movement and my question is: "To what extent can a country persist encouraging migrants whose beliefs and practices are inimical to our own?" It is a counter-terrorism nightmare.

Lastly, "don't dare to be different" is about right. For over 40 years, I've suffered racial epithets which would be illegal and actionable had I come from anywhere than England!

Georgina, unfortunately the current leaders of most nation-states believe more in free trade than free people.

In the status quo, a shipload of wheat has more right to enter Iraq than does a boatload of refugees to leave it.

As long as our governments continue to belive that chattels have greater rights of movement than people, multiculturalism will continue to be viewed as a threat to society, not an enrichment of it.

What is really perplexing about the arguments against multiculturalism is that some go so far as to suggest that multiculuralism leads to the phenomenon of home-grown terrorism. Yet terrorists all share in common a dogmatically monocultural worldview, be they Al Qaeda, the IRA, Marxist revolutionaries, Hezbollah, Maoists, ETA or whatever...

...Not all monoculturalists are terrorists, but all terrorists are monoculturalists.

Leigh,

I'm intrigued! Who is the "Polish immigrant" who was the "big cheese" initially? You can't mean Kosciusko - wrong place, he helped out during the US War of Independence. Strzlecki? Wrong century. Can't have been Karol Wjotyla, can it? He was only here ever so briefly, and then as a visitor, not as a migrant. The early onset Oldtimer's disease must be getting at me, because I'm battling to think of anyone identifiably Polish in origin in Australian public life who was prominent in the bequeathing of 'multiculturalism' upon our body politic. Who do you mean?

GEORGINA SAID:

"Multiculturalism requires that we embrace “our Australian-grown customs” and values, which include freedom, tolerance, inclusion, responsibility, mateship and “a fair go”."

Ok.. lets TEST this where the rubber meets the road.
Examples

1/ When intervied after the Cronulla events, a Muslim youth counsellor stated on national TV as follows:

a) Muslim youth regard themselves as superior to Aussies.
b) They detest western values.

2/ Marrickville Signage. The issue is current.. many businesses are only using 'ethnic' language on their signs.
Saed Kahn, a Marrickville Councilor said regarding the push to enforce English/Ethnic languge on all signs "a bad idea and possibly illegal"

So.. where is 'tolerance and fair go' in ideas of 'racial/religious superiority and linguistic discrimination against the majority of the population ?

I contend, that emphasis on diversity not only creates social barriers and racial tension but it is PROVED to do so.

Georgina, that statistic you quoted about '45% of Australians born overseas, or has at least one parent so' is very tricky and deceptive.

It masks the fact that still, the predominant ethno/cultural background of 70% of Australians is British. (in the wider UK sense)
as MOST of those born overseas are from the UK.

I have a simple test for you ... are u happy with the idea of marrying an Aussie of English background and adopting the name Smith or Jones or something ? That is our 'culture' you know :)
Or.. lets say you keep your own surname.. no biggy. but your children ? they will still be Smiths or Jones's.......rather than Dimopoulos. Or would you insist on 'Jones-Dimopoulos' ?

Now.. here is the REAL test, if you objected, would it be due to an sense of Greek Racial or cultural superiority ? :)

My Anglo cousin is married to an Italian bloke, and she took his name.

Gheko

You say we should embrace difference etc...

Would you feel comfortable if I crammed your life back to the understanding of a baby ? You would have an adult body, but the understanding of a kid. That is the reality for someone who does not understand 'language'.

Now..when ur a toddler its ok, because you have a few years to learn.
But when you are an adult....and you have already formed your identity, it can be a cruel crushing dehumanizing blow of huge proportions.

"Embrace Difference" is a slogun. Would you embrace it if it socially marginalized your chidren ?

The whole idea of a common language is so a society can function efficiently.

Lets ask.. does it "diminish" a migrant who does not speak much English to have a sign in English as well as his own langauge ?

Why would a person NOT want to make his products or services known to the general populace UNLESS he has some specific reasons.

1/ He wishes to discriminate against them and not do business with non 'his' ethnicity.
2/ He is not interested in 'EMBRACING' the host culture which graciously gave him a place to live.

Tolerance
Acceptance
Fair go
Embracing...

are TWO way streets.
It was good enough for me to learn Indonesian and Malay and a tribal language.. so I could preach in them, (rather than use English and be interpreted, taking twice as long) and its good enough for migrants to come here and learn to use our language. Note..'our' language..
Its called 'good manners' and 'embracing'.

I can feel just as much at home in Malaysia as here.. because I embraced....wait for it... sit down first.. ok..here it is... "THEIR" cultures. *hint-hint*

*do for others as you would like them to do for you*

FG

Jerzy Zubrzycki.

“United in diversity” That makes as much sense as “Divided in being the same”

PLEASE ANYONE: Can someone tell me the benefits for European Australians of multiculturalism I am dying to be let in on the worlds biggest secret!

Oh and shutup Mercurius the only thing you are contributing is your ignorance. Everyone can see that multiculturalism takes away from the host culture waters it down and rapes it.

Boaz's sermon on monoculturalism has been effectively answered at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=164#3466 . I really couldn't be bothered flogging this particular dead horse again.

Good comment, Gecko, yep, we do get used to non-Anglos, sometimes more than our own breed. As an oldie who grew in the wheatbelt, we had all types working on wheatstacks just across from the weatherboard school. Us kids used to call the Italians and darker Greeks or Slavs dings or dagos. But never the Swedes or Norwegians.

So it was all about colour, the darker the less acceptable. But no one ever got angry with us kids, even the Afghan camel-team drivers.

In old age, how pleasurable it is to see and feel the benefits of time and change, paying full respect to sport and mixed marriages, and especially to our famous Australian Afghan poet and writer - sorry but forget his name.

You cannot "regulate" cultural difference by contriving a policy of multiculturalism. Cultural difference will remain DIFFERENT.

And to "dare to be different" from the dominant culture of a society by whose values one can only succeed in fulfilling one's ambitions, is to DARE TO EMBRACE FAILURE.

The discourse of multiculturalism is a barren discourse. One cannot build a great strong nation on "a mosaic of various ethnic groups and cultures".

SEE: "Multiculturalism: How a Pet Idea Became a Dinosaur"
http://www.con.observationdeck.org

Geez Dimmo. You are fighting an uphill battle with a moniker like that!

It might help if you changed your name to er, - say Mountbatten or Windsor, as some highly successful immigrants have done in past times. The Name Makes the Man, as we ex-poms like to say.

Are you rich? That's an equaliser. Here's a trick from the old boarding school days. Tuck a big wad of loot down the strides, so you don't feel the caning handed out by the wannabe poms who bought their way into government.

* * *

Soberly Geogina - good one mate. More please.

Leigh,

Thank you. Never even heard of the guy. A Google search revealed the following at www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2003/859455.htm :

"Jerzy Zubrzycki, AO, is one of the worlds most distinguished Sociologists, the "father" of Australia's official policies on multicultualism [sic] and a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, since 1994, where he is a special advisor to Pope John Paul 11 [the late Karol Wjotyla] on migration issues."

EasyTimes,

Under the policy of 'multiculturalism', emphasis of the quite legitimate claims of all different cultures (by inference the inseperable baggage of all who MIGRATE) to merit, is intended to set up a contest within the migrant (and their descendants) whereby they are expected to repudiate their own background (or parentage) as a NECCESARY consequence of having settled in an overwhelmingly British cultural and constitutional setting. Because those already here aren't migrants, they won't be faced with this impossible repudiation. Unfair!, say the very multiculturalists who have set this conflict up. So to establish fairness, the 'multiculturalists' deem non-migrant Australians to have no cultural heritage, for if its existence was ever acknowledged, the logical question for migrants would be "which culture should prevail?". Left to themselves, they would individually (as most have) accept that their future is within the British realm, and adopt its culture. Australia is its own distinctive, independent part of that realm.

By creating or emphasising a so-called 'multicultural' Australian identity outside that essentially British culture, symbolized in the ultimate by its Crown, the multiculturalists hope to transfer the whole country to a different alliegance against the will of the majority. No benefit is intended for anyone, Aboriginal, Asian, or European in origin, other than members of the power clique who will have taken over the country. Its just a hijack. Understand?

For the sake of balance, to see the positive benefit delivered to this country by a much more eminent person of (I think) Polish origins who has changed his name to Smith, go to http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5018

This recent focus demanding one language in this country is rather wierd.

Nearly every country in the world is made up of composite cultures and has to arrange communication so that its people are not disenfranchised by their language differences.

Australia eliminated most of its indigenous languages after European arrival - more language extinction than virtually any other country on Earth.

Having achieved that distinction now we have the audacity to say we can't handle more than one spoken language in this modern society with all its beaut technology.

Rubbish with a capital R.

Get a life. Dare to be different. Stick to vanilla ice cream if you can't handle variety, but at least allow others to choose their own flavour.

Don’t dare to be different? My observation of multiculturalism in Australia is that people do dare to be different. In Sydney one can see it everywhere: enclaves of ethnic communities with their own newspapers, grocery stores, restaurants, schools, churches mosques and so on. In some cases people bring their own ideas of law, displaying contempt and ignorance of our established laws. While on the one hand this multitude of cultures provides variety and interest to the broader community, it inevitably generates tension. For example, some cultures do not seem integrate so easily as other ones, resulting in a lower socio-economic status that harbours resentment. Yes, we should embrace multiculturalism; but then we haven’t much choice, since it was forced upon us by both major political parties, even though we neither asked for it nor wanted it. As a regular visitor to Japan, one of the most homogeneous societies in the world, it is interesting to observe the differences with Australia. The words that I associate with each country respectively are: order and chaos. It amuses me how some commentators think Australia cosmopolitan, when in fact we are hopelessly disorganised, ignorant and inarticulate (one only needs to read some of the posts in this forum to realise that). Much of the chaos here is directly attributable to multiculturalism. Over many generations, however, I hope that an Australian culture and order will emerge, but not before further upheaval. It won’t be in my lifetime, so like everyone else, I will keep to my own.

Some of you just don’t get it. Your views are based on exclusivity, prejudice, insecurity and fear. I suspect that the call for everybody to embrace some sort of “values” system is just to make you feel more inclusive and Australian by demonising others.

You will only tolerate other groups if they remain invisible and think that multiculturalism will somehow lead to a surrender of privilege and power. It’s as if everything in modern society must have sinister overtones and hidden agendas so we can all live in constant fear of each other.

Every country has enclaves during periods of immigration and most of these disappear after the first generation or two. I remember the Greek and Italian street signs and shops in Sydney years ago – all now long gone. The ones we see today will also go when they are of no further use.

During that time there was resentment toward migrants that was more to do with social envy than anything else because they usually worked hard and made sacrifices plus their supportive family and social structure meant they always had help from within their own community. This made them appear more successful than their local counterparts so “because there’s nothing wrong with me - it must be them”.

I remember the stories about immigrant Asians (and even aborigines) getting “free Commodores from the Government” and haven’t forgotten the “four star accommodation” in the detention centres, the imminent danger of being swamped by Asians as well as the children overboard fiasco. All lies but some people NEED to believe it’s true because it somehow justifies their own resentment and prejudices. It just makes them easier to hate.

Oh, and since when has a statement (in any context) from a single Muslim Counsellor been the representative voice of an entire racial group? I suppose the anglo thugs that rioted there must therefore be representative of national opinion.

That riot was less to do with multiculturalism than with marginalisation, discrimination and resentment plus the result of years of social manipulation by our own political leaders.

Georgina- Good work!
Thanks for outlining different aspects of multiculturalism as a policy. It is the kind of education badly needed by some misguided/deceptive patriots (to put it politely).

Speaking of those….

BOAZ_David

Quote:

“1/ When intervied after the Cronulla events, a Muslim youth counsellor stated on national TV as follows:

a) Muslim youth regard themselves as superior to Aussies.
b) They detest western values.”

Unquote:

Who exactly was this imaginary friend of yours??...and proof?

Quote:

”2/ Marrickville Signage. The issue is current.. many businesses are only using 'ethnic' language on their signs.
Saed Kahn, a Marrickville Councilor said regarding the push to enforce English/Ethnic languge on all signs "a bad idea and possibly illegal"

So.. where is 'tolerance and fair go' in ideas of 'racial/religious superiority and linguistic discrimination against the majority of the population ?”

Unquote:

Not withstanding your inability to spell correctly…

There was only ONE shop in the whole of Marrickville that didn’t have a sign in English, a Chinese Video shop.

Now, I have a question for you?

1. When was the last time you walked into a Chinese video shop to hire a Chinese language video? …..Exactly!

If you look for the meaning of Majority in your MS Word dictionary, one of the meanings it spits out is “group in power”. Now you see the basis of your whole self-deceptive point of view is wrong.

The whole beat-up is in fact about a bunch of heavies from the local chamber of commerce wanting to push-out a growing Asian business community. What do you call that?

Oh, in Marrickville we don’t use paternalistic words such as TOLERANCE….how about appreciation for a change

I came here from England 44 years ago and have never tried to keep to my own culture [whatever that's supposed to mean]. Those who I have had as friends and or business associates and/or clients would cover probably every major [and a good many of the less well represented] cultures in Australia.

I have been a member of the [Perth] German Club, Airforce Club and Malaysian Singapore Australian Society. And also a regular or occasional visitor to the Austrian Club, Dutch Club, Spanish Club, Perth and Fremantle Italian Clubs and the Hellenic Society. Why? Because they all like to dance and that's my sport/social interest. Last Saturday, we went to a dance at the Dalmatinac Club.

My second wife learned Belly dancing and became very good at it. She taught this artform for the WA Education Dept. She also performed at functions where most of the people were Eastern Mediteranean, North African and Middle Eastern and we made many new friends and had some great times.

I don't care if people prefer to keep to themselves, but I don't want to associate with serious criminals or serious trouble makers, whatever their racial origin. I believe that Australia should send such people back to where they came from, whether that was England, Lebanon, or anywhere else.

And I don't care what people choose to wear [or not wear, see the thread on nudism]. But sometimes a woman's face must be seen for driving license or passport ID purposes.

And I certainly don't want any newcomer's religion pushed down my throat. We already have more than enough of that from our umpteenth generation Christian extremists.

Mr Khan, in the interests of exactness the word is 'notwithstanding' (no spaces).

And if you are going to type 'Chinese Video' you should be consistent. You give the shop another mention in your comment piece but it appears as 'Chinese video'.

Consistency and correctness are a must on your part if you are going to correct others.

Another councillor, Saeed Khan, called the plan "outright racist", saying: "I don't mind if every business has an English name, but to force shops to translate every single word on their shopfront into English is a stupid, divisive idea."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/shop-names-in-english-support-lost-in-translation/2006/10/24/1161455709410.html

At least we know where you stand when it comes to the issue of racism S Khan. Being critical of any minority groups for any reason is being a racist in your eyes. Nazi are racist asking someone to put a sign up so that the majority of the population can read it isnt. Believe it or not I can see where you are coming from when saying it is silly to put English signs on a shop which only rents out Chinese video’s. Mind you the line has to be drawn somewhere, when I was last in Sydney I was visiting my aunt in Strathfield and I visited an internet café called the Zen (I think that was its name) it was just near the station on the boulevard road. Anyway I went in there and found out the bloke on the desk could not speak a word of English and all the computers were in Korean, all these errors kept coming up in Korean when I was using my hotmail account and I didn’t know what was going on and no one could explain to me cause they could not speak any English. Yeah it might be nit picking but these people where my age in their mid 20’s and had made no attempt to learn the language.
If you want to live in Australia learn to speak the bloody language you get a whole lot more respect from the native population and its the first thing I would do if a moved to a country that did not speak english.

So Boaz regards himself as a tolerant fellow because he learnt Indonesian/Malay so he could preach to them. In other words, Boaz, you went to their country and did exactly what you complain about some Muslims doing here; trying to convert people. Pot. Kettle. Black.

From your experiences in Malaysia, you would be aware that it is a vibrant multicultural society, combining vast numbers of indigenous Malays, Indians, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, Chinese, Islamic and even British and Dutch, into a successful and rapidly modernising society.

The fact that you choses not to mention this in your critique of multiculturalism reveals a rather disingenuous stance on your part.

As for Themistocles' belief that you can't form a nation from "a mosaic of various ethnic groups and cultures", I'm afraid that is exactly what nations are built from, as Ernest Renan demonstrated in 1882, in his work that is foundational in modern scholarship on nationalism: http://www.nationalismproject.org/what/renan.htm

Off the top of my head, here are a few nations that have been built from "a mosaic of various ethnic groups and cultures". Some of them might even be considered great nations:

-The United States of America (every ethnicity on Earth, and the world's greatest power - coincidence?)
-China (Han, Mongols, Cantonese)
-The United Kingdom (English, Welsh, Scots, some Irish)
-India (Every province of India is/was a separate ethnic identity before it was woven into a modern nation)
-Australia circa 1901 (English, Irish, Welsh, Scots, Irish, Chinese, Afghan)
-Indonesia (Over 200 separate ethnic identities across 4,000 islands, Hindu culture, Arabic-Islamic culture)

However, by all means regale me with the success stories of monocultural policies as adopted in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Rwanda, Afghanistan under the Taliban, the Soviet Union, and the great and glorious Japanese and German empires.

EasyTimes however had the most special request. I hope EasyTimes wasn’t thinking of British people when he mentioned “European Australians”. Very few British people would describe themselves as “Europeans” and most would be quite offended at the idea. But then a non-ignorant fellow like EasyTimes would know that. Wouldn’t he?

Mercurius
To be effective in your critique you have to be careful with your reading of what you want to criticize. I did not say that you cannot build a nation "FROM" a mosaic of various cultures, but ON a mosaic... America, as you correctly point out, "has been built" to a great extent from various ethnic groups. But nonetheless, it was the MAINSTREAM of Anglo-Saxon-Celtic culture, that determined the establishment of America as a great nation.

If you have the time and proclivity to see another point of view on multiculturalism, you should read "Multiculturalism: How a Pet Idea Became a Dinosaur"--http://www.con.observationdeck.org

I believe in diversity, people should be free to live their lives with as much individual diversity as they want.

I also believe in the idea of a social contract:

That is: citizens of Australia have a contract with Australian society. Australian society tries to offer its citizens equality before the law, equality of access to public services, equality of opportunity regardless of sex, creed, colour or ethnicity. I know that some see these as goals rather than the present situation, but let’s take a look at the other side.

Diversity does not mean imposing your values or morality on another person: It means that you cannot call a woman a whore because of what she wears. It means that if your sister, daughter or mother, or their friends, want to go topless on a beach then that is up to them - not you: You live in Australia now - get used to it.

It means respecting other freedoms – like the freedom to marry who you want to without pressure or coercion from others.

It means that you cannot claim any advantage or privilege over any person on the basis of ethnicity. It also means that you should not expect the society to pay for your desire to be diverse – celebrate diversity if and when you want – but don’t expect others to pay for it, if your culture is important to you – then you pay for it.

It means accepting that the laws of Australia are written in English, as is its constitution. It means therefore accepting that if you want to be a party to this social contract then you should try to understand the language of the contract.

If you expect Australia to be loyal to you then you must be loyal in return: for instance, when an Australian sports team is playing another country's team, you support Australia - not the team of your cultural origin. If a team from your culture of origin is playing another country’s team – fine – but either support Australia or don’t consider yourself as Australian.

Migrants moving between countries? What are you talking about, they all flock to the civilised western world from hellholes where discrimination on the basis of one's religion or ethnicity is a way of life.

As for Australia having many people and a strong foundation, sorry, wrong again. It's only the white European Australians, on the whole, that join the police, the fire brigade, military, and special emergency services.

This says to me that most don't want to be part of this country.

You are wrong that we are multicultural too, Australia doesn't have seperate legal systems, we would never accept barbaric Sharia, or Islamic law to govern us, where women are worth half the value of a man in court, and need four male witnesses if raped.

What holds this nation together, unfortunately, is white Europeans. Without the morality of Europe, this place would be chaos. We've already seen clan murders among the Lebanese Muslim community on a scale unprecedented in this peaceful nation.

Cabramatta-Fairfield in 1994 was home to the largest Medicare fraud in our history, with 1/3 of the medical professionals in the area involved in a scam to rort the government.

There is little goodwill in such communities, which is why one can have heroin openly available in the street, being sold by twelve year olds.

This would never happen in a community where Europeans dominated, parents would call the police.

Sorry, but this essay was just rehashing the nonsense that we aren't swallowing anymore. All migrants can offer Australia is their food, we don't want their backward moral codes here. Racist to suggest that we should all live under principles arrived at through logic, like human rights?

Good luck in convincing me of that.

We see through the crap you know. I am yet to meet a migrant whp truly considers this place their "real" country, they are still Greek-Australians, not Australians.

Why is it only the English, Irish, and Scottish who, when their rugby or cricket teams come out, don't wave their flags like that embarressing display of Greek nationalism during the Soceroos last game before the world cup?

They are the only ones who truly consider themselves Australians, that's why.

To many, this place is just a bank to educate your kids and wonder at how marvellous it is to live in a society where people don't hate those from the next street.

Australia is like this because of our culture. There is a reason dictators and not democratic governments exist in the middle-east, as Iraq is showing, the people are so racist, so tribal, they can't get along.

I would have to say that this is the worst article I may have seen here, and you obviously can't think very much.

How is it that the media create tension between communities by creating an "us and them" mentality again?

It isn't the extremists who have done this? And Islamic leaders by praising terrorism? Don't they have any responsibility?

Isn't it funny that people come here from nations where discrimination is a way of life, where women can't vote or leave the house without a male relative, where tribal violence is part of life, where there are caste systems for crying out loud, and dictate to us about racism?

Mercurious,
nice to know you’ve recently joined the ‘missionary police’ :)
You misrepresented my position, -let me clarify. I was involved in a role which included technical training of an indigenous person, and the ‘preaching’ or.. teaching at various times to already converted people who had of their own volition sought out missionaries themselves, because they saw from the evidence among related people how lives can change in Christ, and they desired this relationship.
Your ‘mosaic’ thoughts are appreciated. I suggest though, that a definite “Australian” culture had already emerged from those groups in Australia prior to WW2.

SKhan
The issue is the “principle” of linguistic discrimination against Australians, something definitely ethnocentric and as close as it gets to outright racial discrimination.

Irrespective of how much of a beat up it might be by ‘heavies’ or of ‘degree’ in the SMH, or their mis-contextualization of your own remarks, the issue is still this important principle. Not my lack of spelling ability. (This is called ‘playing the man’...cultural note ).

On the point of ‘evidence’ for the Muslim youth Counselor and the claims he made, it was on National TV. I saw it and heard it, from his mouth (as did the whole of viewing Australia), and reported it faithfully in my post. He interacts with large numbers of Muslim youth, so he does speak with some authority.

Even if it was ‘one’ Asian Video shop, (I saw the size of the sign) and some friction between the Chamber, which you link with ‘anti Asian’ sentiment, it does not alter the point of sound signage policy for Australia.

It should be a Federal issue.

If your real but misreported point was being against the translation of EVERY bit of ethnic language on product labeling, I suggest kindly that English should be mandatory also. Especially on medicinal products. We have a national language for good reason. ”Social harmony and interaction” rather than ethnocentric isolationism.
I would not dare to assume you are against the non racist facilitation of harmonious interaction and communication between ethnic groups... are u?

HAMLET/Thermistocles... superb posts :) !

Multiculturalism is good for Australia: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html
Are these comments by a Muslim leader another niche benefit of MC? Lets all embrace diversity!

Mercurius when describing a group of people as a whole like I did for European’s you tend to include the UK as its part of Europe.
Stop your quibbles and answer the question Mercurius!

From the reading of those in favour of MC they all seam to have a view that we live in a perfect world and in a perfect world everyone will get along. Unfortunately we don’t live in a utopia we live on the planet earth where there is still much chaos. I think people who are not pro MC are realist and know that we live in a very lucky country and want to protect ourselves from the strife that still resides in much of the world. Is it wrong to protect ones family and friends from this? Europeans have shed much blood already sorting out our own problems with each other, now that we have created a successful and peaceful civilisation all the peoples of the world who have coward away from doing the same in there own parts of the world want to move in on us and not only bring their cultures but also their many problems.

Georgina. It is not politically correct to post this kind of article on OLO.

I think multiculturalism is a good. I always vote for politicians who adopt policies that further social harmony and understanding between different groups.

To those who assert that multiculturalism was imposed - aren't you the same people who talk of mandates, democracy and silent majority when it suits your position on other issues? If you want a monoculture, vote for an avowed monoculturalist.

One criticism of this article is that it mainly relates difference to race, religion and ethnicity. I think that often sub-cultural influences override the main cultural mores of society and even a small cultural group's orthodoxies may be challenged. For instance: I notice that a lot of Indigenous youths are influenced by "gangster-rap" type lyrics. The racists overlook this influence when the youth "acts out" in a negative way and it is Indigenous culture that is blamed for the behaviour even though it is affront to the person's Indigenous group. (One could also consider the recent events where boys abused a vulnerable girl and posted it on the net. Will their private-school background, Christianity, ethnicity be fore grounded or the “Jackass” culture?)

Mainstreamers are often not treated fairly either. For instance: people with tattoos, “sleeves” and weird hair dos are often discriminated against. If the same prejudiced behaviour was directed at a dark-skinned person, there would be claims of racism and there are avenues of complaint in place for them not available to others in society. This is a racist setup in itself. Racism is institutionalised to the point that it negates a fair go for people discriminated against on non-racial grounds.

The Hansonites intuitively used this failure to address unfairness on non-racial grounds to push their cultural supremacist ideas. (Ironically, those ideas encompassed an underlying racism which was relinquished on condition that the person adapt the same cultural mores of the group. This in part explains why One Nation followed the path of most monocultures and self destructed.)

Multiculturalism is a good but it must respect all differences to be fair.

Themistocles, I read that article. It, like all the other criticisms of multiculturalism on this forum, is based on a misunderstanding of what multiculturalism means.

All the arguments I have seen on this page opposing multiculturalism are blaming it for the sins of a monocultural approach to life. Immigrants who don’t participate in Australian life and refusing to change or adapt in any way, are adopting a monocultural approach to life. It is quite wrong to blame multiculturalism for this.

Similarly, Australian citizens who expect every new arrival to act like a walking tabula rasa and don’t want Australian society to change in any way, are adopting a monocultural approach to life. It is quite wrong to blame multiculturalism for this.

The government line from that article you recommended puts it neatly: "essential for a successful multicultural society were social cohesion; respect for cultural identity and awareness of Australian’s cultural diversity; equal opportunity and access for all Australians; and equal responsibility for, commitment to, and participation in Australian Society".

In a multicultural society, that is what all Australians do, whether they are longstanding citizens, or new arrivals. If they don’t, then they are living a monocultural life. It is quite wrong to blame multiculturalism for this.

Meanwhile, Benjamin seems confused. He doesn't think it's right for people to call themselves "Greek-Australians", but in the next breath he talks about "white European Australians" as being some sort of cultural yardstick. Well, Benjamin, ignoring the contradiction, I can only point out, again, that "European Australian" doesn’t include the descendents of English, Welsh, Scots or Irish, since they wouldn't describe themselves as European. Is this what you had in mind?

Benjamin I’ve met any number of migrants who consider Australia their real country, including my grandparents. And I’ve met many Australians of English, Scots and Welsh descent who take an each-way bet in international sports matches. Benjamin, this might come as a shock to you, but it is customary at an international sporting match for more than one nation’s flag to be visible. Thank goodness you don’t run the World Cup.

Answer to Ronnie Peter's question:
“To those who assert that multiculturalism was imposed - aren't you the same people who talk of mandates, democracy and silent majority when it suits your position on other issues?”

No.

Further to your comments on discrimination: discrimination always works both ways. To uphold a supposed victim of discrimination is to deny another’s freedom to choose.

Mercurius,
How can anyone blame multiculturalism when it can’t do anything on its own? You are just nit-picking. Only the people that are part of it can make or break it. Multiculturalism is just another “ism” - a utopian dream that will never truly work. The evidence around the world suggests that monocultures provide more social order and stability, but all systems are attended with their own advantages and disadvantages. Apart from a greater variety of food and restaurants, multiculturalism has unfortunately made Australian society less safe, more violent and chaotic. Humans are social creatures for whom belonging to an identifiable group is an important part of living. The barriers of language, religion and culture do not make it easy to become part of or even understand foreign cultures. There will always be dissenters and discrimination on both sides. The fact is we have it, like or lump it; so short of getting a Hitler style dictator to perform “cultural cleansing”, we just have to get along with each other.

Benjamin said it all. Hurrah for a politically incorrect truthful poster.
If a migrant begs to come to Australia because his/her country is so bad ,why then turn around a say,"I do not like Australian law, language,lifestyle,religion,dress or anything at all, I want to live like I did in my own country with the same laws,language and traditions I was born into".
Why not send that person/s back to homeland he/she has never mentally left?
Why should Australians tolerate these aliens who live in our pockets?
Why should we support a leech like that?

Can I just point out to Mecurious that Brazil (and many Latin American countries - though many are bicultural) is more ethnically diverse than the US, and is fraught with poverty and instability. Why hasn’t ethnic diversity turned Brazil into a superpower? What about South Africa?

Your inclusion of China as "a mosaic of various ethnic groups and cultures" is perplexing. China essentially monocultural with the Han ethnic group comprising 92% (out of 1.3 billion people) of the population. More to the point the examples you chose comprise of mostly of countries with various ethnicities from similar and compatible cultures which has made them ‘stronger’.

And to Ronnie Peters, who should the mono-culturalist’s vote for? Labour or Liberal?

Robg says: “… discrimination always works both ways. To uphold a supposed victim of discrimination is to deny another’s freedom to choose.” Deny another’s freedom to choose what? To discriminate unfairly?

Let us go back to the Universities of the USA. The racists’ freedom to choose to discriminate against Afro Americans who wanted to attend university denied Afro-Americans their freedom to choose to partake in a process that would help them achieve their potential as an individual. That is undemocratic. Just as it is unfair to discriminate against a person of ability because they are, for instance, overweight.

Robg says “No” to my question re: mandate and democratically elected people.
In a democracy we must have the freedom to choose, within reason, the culture that our authentic selves feels the most aligned with. Now the members I voted for are democratically elected and have similar beliefs - so what are you saying Robg? Do you disagree with the voters’ choices or democracy?

Robg you want a monoculture? Scary. Any push towards a monoculture is necessarily a push away from democracy and the rights of the individual, especially, the freedom to choose the lifestyle or the group they engage with.

The Catholic Church of old is an extreme example of a monoculture. Those who differed in opinion were tried as heretics. There was one way to live and one set of rules to follow- that is monoculturalism. Now the heretics by challenging the orthodoxies of the day saved Christianity. We have a fairly robust pluralistic Christian community. One could say it is multicultural in that it allows for differences in beliefs and ceremonies etc. Consider other attempts at monoculture (communism) in the Soviet Union and “One Idea” or “Volkish Philosphy” in Nazi Germany. Monoculture doesn’t allow for individual differences and is bound to end in chaos and undermine democracy.

The very fact that you are freely challenging the orthodoxies of multiculturalism is an argument for multiculturalism – thank you. Do want to live in a monoculture where dissent usually ends up being squashed or outlawed?

Ronnie..first of all welcome to OLO...I've not seen your posts before this.

Regarding the examples used in your last post to examine how upholding a victims rights denies another his.

Better examples should be used which are closer to home.

Muslim culture prohibits non related males from bathing mixed with female Muslims. So, at Cronulla, Muslim males cordoned off the Rock Pools bathing area at times and prevented 'white skips' from sharing the facility. Thats the kind of thing meant. 'Respecting' Muslim culture in this case, would be to deny the free use of a public facility by others.

Then my favorite. The infamous "Ham Sandwich Affair" in Melbourne.

-Muslim Mayor of Hume shire.
-13% Muslims rate payers.
-Mayor decides to remove ham from council menus' at public functions to prevent alienating Muslims.
-Public is OUTRAGED at being discrimated against in terms of food preference.

Instead of simply providing a table of Halal food, the mayor discriminated against all non Muslims.

These are the areas of cultural clash, where respecting one culture is to deny another its freedom.
In such cases, we have to appeal to 'The predominant' culture which prevails in a country. In Australia, we have one, and it includes eating ham sambos. So, out of courtesy, other cultures should adapt and adjust to ours.

We shake hands with males and females. Its our culture. Don't deny us the right to practice it when introduced to Muslims who don't allow physical contact between women and non relations. To do so is to discriminate against us.
Just imagine if our PM went to New Zealand, and then to a major Maori cultural event, where he is expected to rub noses with the host. He recoils in horror..eeeeuuuwwww yuk... no WAY will I rub my NOSE against his.... and so it goes on.
When in Rome....

BD, it gets worse. I saw one intolerant type recently posted the following on another thread

"For example, if the issue was accomodation and a neighbour objected to a homosexual couple moving in next door, I would find in favor of the complainant." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=156#3008

It's not just mossie mayors who show no respect for the rights of those who don't share their beliefs.

Thankfully I suspect that the kind of intolerant bigotry shown by that poster is not typical of most from his(or her) faith.

Unfortunately some reports suggest that the extremist portion of that faith group is on the rise. If not on the rise certainly on the nose.

We need to clamp down on these types who would push their own religious mania's on the rest of us up to the limit of the law.

They are a danger to all civilised people, don't you agree?

R0bert

Georgina D,

You appear to be conflating two incompatible meanings of "difference" and "diversity":

1) RE symbolism - diversity of meaning/interpretation of the 'good life'
2) RE ethics - diversity of ethical principles

The reason no one bothered over the years to spell the difference out is that it just seems so obvious that without the universal (that is, NON diverse) applicability of certain principles you cannot have any diversity whatsoever.

For this reason, diversity is permissible and encouraged, but only insofar as the ethical principles upon which it stands remain upheld: e.g. considerateness and tolerance of others, fairness, the right to participate, to be critical, and the obligation to be subject to criticism, etc.

In other words, EVERYTHING is subject to criticism and scrutiny, even cultural practices and God! No exceptions are made on the grounds that it is one's "culture", where that culture entails a violation of such principles.

Everything must be subject to rational debate only, including one's precious "tradition".

Angelo; South Africa’s problems are due to years of apartheid, nothing to do with multiculturalism.

And China is anything but monocultural. The idea that it is an homogenous mass of Han Chinese is a Maoist myth. Throughout the early 20th century, it suited the Chinese nationalists and later the communists to inveigle into China's national consciousness the idea that they are all ethnically uniform. It seems the Maoists were successful in spreading the myth, and people outside China certainly believe it - they all look the same, right? ;-)

But more recent, and quite courageous Chinese scholarship has poured cold water on this myth, and archaeological digs are now taking place all over southern China and are finding enormous cultural differences across the supposedly "all-Han" areas.

Stay tuned - as China liberates itself, you will start to see credible scholarship emerging which will lay out the full diversity of its heritage.

EasyTimes – in response to your question, I have grown up in multicultural Australia. My playground friends had parents from China, Lebanon, India and Turkey. In my adult life, I've learnt songs in many languages, been a guest in many different homes, and associated in business and in my personal life with people from many backgrounds.

That is living multiculturalism, not an ideology. More to the point, EasyTimes, my lifestyle has done you no harm whatsoever. So what's the problem? So you went to an internet cafe where everyone spoke Korean. Diddums. Given they were in their mid-20s and couldn't speak English, I think you'll find many of them were international students over here to learn English. Thousands of Koreans spend the last 3-4 years of high school working to save enough money to come here for 1-2 years English tuition – so they can get a decent job back in Korea. English language teaching is worth billions of dollars a year to the Australian economy. And DIMA checks the attendance roll and deports those who miss more than one day per week. I witnessed this when training in an ESL college. It's the real deal.

Boaz

How are you mate? Don't let that SKhan (who I believe is the Marickville councillor that thinks having signs in English is racist even though, being a Muslim, he comes from a country where religious and ethnic minorities are treated like dirt.

That vile youth leader (are their any Islamic leaders which aren't immoral, and have the personalities of conmen? Apart from their women leaders that is, some of whom seem almost western in their thinking) had the name of FADHI RAHMAN, but for SKhan to call him imaginary means he doesn't want to believe he said that Lebanese feel superior to Australians, with a big smirk on his face.

How do they feel superior? Honestly, how? I could say some really mean, but truthful things here....

SKhan,

Only, repeat, ONLY, western nations, such as the nation you live in aren't racist.

That is why you are here mate, and likely that is why you have to hate us and call such a simple thing like having signs in English racist (let me ask you, do you support multiculturalism in your "real country"?)

I feel sorry for those radical Muslims too, who feel (astonishingly) that they are superior to us( I can understand how the germans, or any western Europeans could get carried away with thinking that considering they have thinkers, scientists, they are inventors, have art, music, in other words real culture - not just some dumb traditions, they question everything about themselves, which Muslims can't hack because they know our value system, not us, really is superior to their Sharia because it is based on REASON and LOGIC, i.e, no concept of Dhimmitude.

By the way, I hope people here know that while the US in particular is thought related to slavery, the west made up no more than 1.5% of the world market.

Most slavery occured in the Islamic world, and Africa, and still does today with the Asian workers who are housemaids, often underpaid, beaten, even raped by some of these most "pious" Saudi Arabians...........

...Yet, like Paedophilia, because it is ONLY talked about in the west, it is seen as a western thing.

Well I've got news for you, SKhan likely already knows about Mohammed's six yr old wife (which I write off as a product of the times) but that most revered Khoemeini also had child brides.

Is such behaviour sanctioned in Islam SKhan?

Look forward to your long and convoluting answer, if you bother. Although you didn't respond to Abyss q's in the other post (because you couldn't, but that you chose to respond to him of all the posts there shows what he said was spot on)

ON THIS SHEIK HILALI thing, does anyone else agree that, now that Muslim leaders have actually defended him and let him continue, that unless the Muslim public protest in the street and don't attend his hate mosque, then Australian-Australians are fair to generalise that they must agree with him?

Any responses to this that disagree must be based on reason otherwise they are pointless.

Good luck.

Multiculturalism is a farce put upon us to control people. People who push multiculturalism are not real supporters because they want to experience the foods, the costumes, the languages, etc but don't want to experience their cultural laws for that is then labelled as oppression.

If you really want multiculturalism, then you must accept all avenue's of these cultures including honour killings, the beating and murder of women who have been raped, tongues removed, the Godfather principles held by many cultures. Yet this is why the government is calling for such changes because under multiculturalism, immigrants come to western nations wanting to treat people how they like for it is their culture.

Interestingly, it is these do gooders who are intent on denying the caucasion Australian from retaining their own culture and heritage on the basis that it is racist to do so. Such in the conspiracy of the liberalists and marxists(et al.). All they want is control.

Not that I support segregation, I don't. I do find it interesting though that the Nazi sites are not calling for deaths to blacks, jews and so on but a segregation, claiming that by segregating, one encourages people to retain their own culture and remain free of pressure to conform to another's culture as we are seeing in the west.

Modern multicuturalism is forcing the world into mono-culture while the right wings of politics are encouraging differences even those using the wrong levers.

It is the caucasian Australian that is being told to pull their heads in while people moving in are allowed to do things that we would be attacked for.

Ronnie,

You appear to be pushing multiculturalism as some untouchable moral highroad, like some of our politicians, who are most likely craving for the ethnic vote. Had you properly read my posts, you would see that I pointed out that no system is necessarily better than another. I concluded that we should try to make what we have work. I needn’t point out the benefits of multiculturalism, as you are only too happy to do so. However, based on my personal observations there are examples of monocultures that have worked extremely well. I draw your attention to Japan and South Korea (some northern European countries may be others examples, but I have not been there, so I cannot say for sure). Both are highly homogenous societies in which everything from etiquette to infrastructure function extremely well. In Australia, thanks to multiculturalism, what is our etiquette? What is one to expect of others? I have no idea what expect of them, as I have experienced everything from unexpected politeness to sheer rudeness. Should we shake hands, or will I get punched in the face? And our infrastructure: what more need I ask than have you ever used Sydney’s rail system, or the airport? This is what I mean by a chaotic society.

You also confuse the definition of culture in this context. An on-line dictionary gives this definition: “the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another”. Your examples to discredit monocultures are very poor. The Soviet Union was far from a monoculture, it was made up of many different countries, each with their own distinct culture. Indeed it was the cultural diversity of the Soviet Union that ultimately destroyed it. Political systems and religions, like the Catholic Church, are just part of what makes cultures. Communism would have to have endured for centuries to materially change the underlying cultures within the Soviet Union. In fact, the arguments presented by others in favour of multiculturalism are so pathetic that they make me laugh.

BOAZ_David

Quote:
“On the point of ‘evidence’ for the Muslim youth Counselor and the claims he made, it was on National TV. I saw it and heard it, from his mouth (as did the whole of viewing Australia), and reported it faithfully in my post. He interacts with large numbers of Muslim youth, so he does speak with some authority.”

Unquote:

Very simple. How about you provide real info like…
Who?
When?
Where?
And What?

Quote:
“I would not dare to assume you are against the non racist facilitation of harmonious interaction and communication between ethnic groups... are u?”

Unquote:

Good idea not to assume anything otherwise!
In fact I brought the idea of cross-cultural celebrations to Marrickville council 2.5 years ago.

Here is an example of a cross-cultural event this Saturday in Marrickville- yes my idea in action!

....Marrickville Council is celebrating its relationship with its six sister cities on Saturday 28 October with a Multicultural Evening at the Sydney Portuguese Community Club.

Council has relationships with Bethlehem, Palestine; Funchal, Portugal; Keelung, Taiwan; Kos, Greece; Larnaca, Cyprus; and Safita, Syria.

The Multicultural Evening will feature displays from each of these sister cities, and performances from local cultural groups....

See..., there would be a lot less fear and hate around if the likes of you and Benjamin got out of your holes more often.

Instead wasting your life online and constantly writing hateful messages to feed your darkest instincts, come and join me in Marrickville.......... and may be you and your supremacist friends might get it into your heads that we as a nation are not about colour, race and religion!

Saeed.... quite a bit of passion there I see -well done.

Its quote notable how your perspective is shaped by your own 'ethnicity'... actually.. more accurately by the fact that you see Australia probably as a 'rich mosaic of diverse cultures'. Sure..it is in some areas like yours.
I don't have any problem with your multicultural celebration. I went to one myself a while back. I along with many others in cross cultural marraiges had an evening together. Viet, Philippino, Malay (Muslim) Chinese, Dayak, and even the odd caucasian.
While it was an enjoyable night, there were some worrying examples of 'cultural supremacy' evident, mainly from the Philippino and Chinese. They seemed to be of the opinion that there is no such thing as 'Australian' culture.

On the Who what where when thing.. I can't scrounge up the archive, I just know what I saw and heard.. I'm not blind or deaf.

Now.. getting back to the 'PRINCIPLE' I advocated, which is.. respect for the host culture by newer arrivals. Without a sense of cultural normalcy, "everyone will do what is right in his own eyes" (Joshua 1:8) and their will be chaos.

The guideline should be:

When an a clash of custom arises, the newcomer should acquiesce to the culture of the host. Shake hands...not rub noses, that kind of thing. Its common courtesy.

My other primary mantra is that emphasizing difference leads to conflict.
Here is a classic example from todays paper:

"An Australian employee of CHC Helicopters Australia was badly injured when youths attacked him at Dili's airport on Wednesday.

Rumours have spread in Dili that Australians have been taking sides in the conflict, which Australian commanders deny."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/dili-gangs-turn-on-australian-forces/2006/10/26/1161749254467.html

"Difference"...works unTIL... sufficient cultural clash occurs and we get a 'Cronulla'.....Its not about 'supremacy' though you would love it to be :) ..its about human nature.

Robg. I read your post and disagreed with most of your assertions. I not only think multiculturalism is inevitable (as you do) and already always was in place but also think it is the best and safest society long term.

For me history records the failures of monoculturalism. I think Soviet Union failed to become a monoculture because the diversity couldn’t be oppressed. Your argument is a little confused Robg. Don’t you see that the many cultures of the Soviet is what saved it from communism in the long term?

A peasant farmer has a different mindset and history and therefore culture to a communist and thus the peasant’s culture is too grounded to be consumed by a necessarily monocultural society like a communist one. Thus better to have a multicultural society that allows for difference of ideology. Ideology being one of the vitals that informs ones cultural mores.

I have been to Japan. My interpreter was educated in the USA and he had a different set of cultural ideals than his fellows. I went walking around Osaka and I saw diversity. I was handed pamphletts by guys who were clearly not mainstreamers.

They also have a particularly vibrant punk culture which is hardly aspiring to fit in.

I felt very uncomfortable with the idea that servants bow lower and more than their superiors. They use the same bath water for a week too. I don’t know mate. My escort didn’t follow these behaviours.

I will agree that they seem more homogenous than Australia - but so what! Multiculturalism is about accommodating difference and psychology books will tell you that that is a sign of maturity. I think we are up to the challenge. I agree we have a situation and we must deal with it sensibly.

Australia’s etiquette is whatever you feel like. I love it.

How you are relating Sydney’s rail system to multiculturalism is beyond me Robg.

I think that unexpected politeness and rudeness you expereinces are probably an individual malady. Expect politeness and use good manners is all on can do. More to come Robg.

Mercurius – These people were running a business and the extent of their English was “sorry English no sorry” I don’t think they were over hear learning English, maybe French?

The problem with mc is not the individual (but it can be) a lot of the people I know who were not born in Australia are very nice people BUT once you put 100 or 1000 of these people together they become distant and arrogant as a group towards the host culture.

My Muslim friend who I worked with in London was a very nice bloke but we could never be friend outside work because of his religious dogma’s. I would say hey Moh I’m cooking some spaghetti bol do you want some and he would reply where did you buy it? I bought it at budgens (UK version of coles) he would reply sorry I cant eat it unless it has been bought at a special Arabic shop. Moh want a beer? No its against my religion. Well do you want to come down to the pub with us and drink orange juice or coke? No I don’t like being around people who are under the influence of drugs! He was more then happy to socialise as long as it was at a Turkish café or an Iraq restaurant.

The Muslim community failing to act with regards to sheik by sacking him is another big step back for them in Australia. Can you imagine what would happen if any “Australian” said some thing along the lines of what he said? They would be relieved from any position in society very quickly.

I now fully believe Kizer Trad is a pig of a man! After listening to him critics Australia over its efforts in helping in Lebanon watching an SBS doco about a Muslim school opening in Sydney and Trad doing little more then scratch himself during the singing of the national anthem and now watching him feebly try and defend that sheik comments! He is the head of the Muslim “friendship” association haven’t they got anyone any better?

Robg . For me the word culture means more than“: “the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another”

I would agree that for simplicity sake “the sum total ways of living… “ is adequate. I reject the idea of generational transference as people are known to reject aspects of their forebear’s culture or for that matter the dominant culture they are born into. I might add that I see no reason why culture can’t be an individual thing. I have confused nothing. You have misunderstood.

Multiculturalism is a moral high road. Yes that is my opinion. You state an obvious as if it is an affront. It is opinion and I have tried to explain why I hold it.

I don’t agree that homogeneity and multiculturalism are mutually exclusive. People get along when they want to and have to. Clearly define boundaries in relation to acceptable behaviours and respect those boundaries. There are no utopias possible so don’t be expecting too much. Having said that, if we can get on with each other with our differing ways then we can get on with others with a bit of live and let live.

I made it clear that heresy and criticism are a good. How do you get “untouchable” from that? I said we need more heretics that being “a person who offers too good a criticism of authorities.”

And this brings me to why I think people wrongly think multiculturalism is being imposed. It is being presented as an official belief systemrather than one that is inevitable result of individualistic people with spirit and an enabled free will living together in community.
It is also too close to the old church and state fusion which enforces cultural mores (like Islam does). However, I think that the government has identified the problems associated with society made of a diverse groups and is rightly trying to promote social cohesion.

Believe what you want while you still can. I think multiculturalism is a good.

Ronnie....
with all due respect, 'Culture' cannot be an individual thing. By definition it relates to goups. Pls refer some Anthropology.
Behavior...can be individual, but no individual in a group is separate from a culture.

"Clearly define boundaries in relation to acceptable behaviours and respect those boundaries."

EXACTLY !
and that is what most of us are on about. Our point is that the idea of "all cultures being treated with the same respect and tolerance" certainly makes a good sound bite but it is totally impractical.

Hence.. we have to have limits and boundaries which without question will curtail some cultures and facilitate others.

Food Laws is a good example.
The Muslim mayor of Hume shire in Melbourne tried to deny the 87% of non muslim residents the opportunity to partake of 'Ham'(haram) sandwiches at Council/Public functions. He caused community and STATEwide outrage at his discriminatory behaviour. He polarized the community and created anti muslim feelings bordering on actual violence. As the herald said in its headline about the Sheik,"HOW DARE YOU".

So, again, I re-state my view on the 'limits and boundaries' which you so conveniently articulated:

"Where a cultural clash occurs, the predominant culture must prevail"

Do we have a prevailing/predominant culture ? you BET we do, and it arises from the confluence of the races/cultures symbolized on the Union Jack. It is expressed so well in Dorothea McKella's poem "My Country"

So, when it comes to dress, food, customs such as greetings and farewells minority cultures must respect the majority culture.
If a Muslim couple are welcomed to the home of an Anglo person, the host will shake the hand of the man, and depending on the level of familiarity, will hug the wife possibly even giving her a kiss on her cheek, or if not familiar will shake her hand. That...is our custom, and it must be respected.

Even if we visit the home of a Muslim couple, they must realize that we are in Australia, and the same customs should prevail unless they want social aparthied.

BOAZ, read my earlier post, the racist Islamic youth councillor's name was FADHI RAHMAN, don't let SKHAN think you made it up.

Are there any Muslim leaders that don't have the personalities of the most vile conmen, used car-salesman?

How embarressing for Muslims (are you going to protest SKHAN?) that most Arab Muslims see nothing wrong with his comments.

Head of Arab radio 2ME said ALL LEBANESE MUSLIMS CONFIRMED IT.

Imagine if they made up 30% of our population instead of 3%.

Does anyone still not see why 100% of Muslim countries are redneck misoginstic dumps, full of paedophilia, crime, rape, decadence to the highest degree?

Does anybody doubt the superiority of the values the west lives by, that is, people, no matter their religion, race, are equal? As long as their views aren't redneck Nazi like, like so many Muslim values?

Read Tanveer Ahmed's article in the Australian (he's a Muslim too) about how many Muslim males think white women are sluts, inferior whores.

Like most of us who have lived out in the trenches didn't already know this?

I wonder why the Cronulla riots occurred?

The demons who brought out these backward third world cultures on mass will one day face treason trials...

Benjamin: "I wonder why the Cronulla riots occurred?"

Because a mob of racist thugs who think like you do, decided to express themselves illegally, violently and sociopathically.

Our society is, for better *and* worse, irreversibly multiculural. People from any identifiable social group who promote the kinds of ideas that you post here, or indeed ideas like those of boofheads like Sheik Hilaly, really don't seem to want to actually be part of the solutions to these kinds of problems.

Moreover, with only mild exaggeration - you *are* the problem.

Georgina

Your views truly reflect what your surname decrees-you are a child (poulos)of the people (demos.)

I agree that to be at ease with the multicultural demos the individual must accept not just tolerate, appreciate and permit the free practise of diversity in culture.

I applaud your taunt to all -go on be different while looking out and respectingthe difference in others.

For me the quintessential moment for all Australians and our identifying moment is the celebration of the afternoon tea so magnificently described by George Johnston in "My Brother Jack"-lamingtons, vanilla slices, the sponge cake, pavlova...

If he wrote the book today would he have added the baklava, the mille fieulle, the canoli?

Snowflake

C.J. and Snowy

could you please respond to this ?

Where we have different cultures mixing. Where most people (as it will usually be) are of Anglo background and custom, but a few are present from a different one, and a situation arises where the culture of some members present, is in direct opposition to that of the Anglos as they circulate and interact.

Should the predominant culture submit to the new, or the other way round ? Lets say something simple like an introduction... a Muslim couple are introduced to the manager or something.
Should the Muslim man say "Hey wait a minute..don't shake my wifes hand, thats not Islamic"....or.... ?

Remember now, if we went to Arabia, we would be expected NOT to shake any females hand, and I see no problem with complying with that cultural expectation in 'their' country.

Situation 2.
I goto New Zealand. I am visiting a Maori village. It is customary for visitors to be greeted by rubbing noses. Should they submit to MY culture or me to theirs ?

Situation 3. We Aussies visit a village of my wifes people. They keep on filling up our milo cup no matter how much we protest. We find out that the cultural way is to put our hand over the cup when they next come to fill it... do we comply or just get frustrated at the cup being filled aaaaaa-gain. ?

Curious :) (can't wait)

Boaz - I'll let you into a little secret: cultures don't actually do anything, but people do. Each of your contrived scenarios is easily dealt with by people with good will, regardless of their cultural backgrounds.

It is stridently intransigent cultural imperialists like you who are the real problem, rather than obvious idiots like Hilaly or the Cronulla rioters. Multiculturalism is here to stay, and it is inevitable that "Anglo" dominance in Australian culture will be diluted over time.

Get used to it.

CJ Morgan claims I am part of the problem, yet like many far leftists, has no basis for this.

What did I say that was wrong, or inflammable, other than my descriptions of what some Muslims think of our values?

What? What? What!

You say that multiculturalism is here to stay, get used to it, which in itself is a racist comment to those who share the values of human rights, secularism, which, as you correctly point out, will be diluted over time if nothing is done.

You obviously haven't been reading the papers in the last few days, as they show that most Lebanese Muslims support Hilali's comments, showing me that quite a few in this community are rednecks.

But you don't see that do you? You feel uncomfortable seeing any non-white as a possible redneck, it just doesn't feel right.

It can't be, no, those who say such mean things are wrong, racists themselves even.

Engage in debate properly or don't bother. If people like me are the problem, just for pointing out uncomfortable realities, show me how.

Can you do that?

Do you believe that all Islamic nations are hotbeds of racism, misoginy, and sectarianism?

Do you know how non-Muslims are treated in such places?

I'll assume you don't, but you really should read Amnesty International reports into such behaviour. This isn't to say they are all racists, or all horrible people, of course not, but it does say that on the whole, their value system is screwed.

Which is why they came here, isn't it?

As far as I can see, "multiculture" means moving to a tolerant country where the soft hearted suckers pay you for all your needs.
You then turn around and import all the old ways with you and when you get into strife for breaking Australian laws, you shrug your shoulders and say,"but it is multiculture to things my way, we don't like Australian ways"
That is the real multiculture.

Mercurius, you really are an irritating little twat, aren't you.

I think many of you are missing the fundamental point of the article: that multiculturalism invites us to celebrate diversity, but our differences must be already accepted by the dominant culture.

Perhaps that is why many western nations, including Australia & France, have difficulty accepting the customs, traditions & way of life of immigrants who are of the Islamic faith - because we can't embrace their 'differences' within our own socio-legal framework.

Good grief....

C.J. has totally avoided a fundamental and important question of principle. Deflecting to so as not to face it.

Sorry C.J. you are not going to escape that easily mate :)

So.. as the pastor told the congregation when they asked "Why are you preaching to us the same sermon as last week?" ....."Because your lives didn't change one scrap.. so I need to say it all again !"

You (C.J.) could at least do the courtesy and respect to the debate, by giving a definite view of 'principle'... should the host culture give way to the invited guest or the other way around. ?

There is nothing contrived about my examples, they would form part of an orientation course run by Foreign Affairs for diplomats, or for missionaries (I did one) or for NGO aid workers.

Just imagine an NGO barging in like a bull in a china shop, offending local culture with every 2nd thing they did... brilliant.

Annie251.. have you joined Al-Qaeda or something ?

the 'Problem' as you see it is in WE not accepting cultural difference from THEM. errrr. tap tap.. annie.. refer my above paragraph or 2.
Why did you not say THEY are not accepting cultural difference in US ?
seriously... why ?
Did you not get taught when you were a child to respect your neighbour ? if you go to their home, to be careful not to touch things or pilfer the fridge or whatever ? If 'you' are the newcomer/visitor/migrant it is up to YOU to accept the culture and ways of those who provided you with a safe home. To do otherwise is to insult them.

We accept them into our socio legal framework to the extent that they COMPLY with it. I hardly think you want some Muslim to hold your legs apart and forcibly mutilate your genitals as happened to even grandmothers in Ambon Indonesia ?

Boaz, in my experience it assists in these kinds of debates if participants actually read or listen to what others have to say. I realise the rules are somewhat different for sermons and preaching - perhaps you're confusing the discursive forms?

Your purported question of "principle" is unanswerable, because - as I have pointed out - cultures don't actually "do" anything. Individuals act in various ways that are influenced by various factors including their cultural background, their environment, their education, their individual genetic makeup etc. If people treat each other with a modicum of courtesy and respect, then it is my experience that cultural differences rarely predominate in interpersonal relations.

On the other hand, in the absence of mutual respect and courtesy, it is very easy indeed to cause offence.

Speaking of which, it seems that you have also completely misinterpreted Annie251's post above. Otherwise I'm sure even you wouldn't have stooped to the use of such an offensive hypothetical example in your very intemperate response.

Perhaps you should sermonize less, and debate more?

A number of alleged "absolutes" are being used as examples. For instance, shaking hands with women. When I came to Western Australia from England 44 years ago, one of the first things I noticed was that most Australian women didn't seem to either want or expect to shake hands with men. In fact I got the definite impression that, although British women customarily shook hands, Australian women didn't. I didn't try to make anything of this, to me it was irrelevant.

For many years, I had jobs in sales and sales management, where I was doing business with both men and women, basically with whoever made the purchasing decisions. I noticed a gradual change in the number of Australian women shaking hands, generally starting with the younger professional women. It's still irrelevant to me, I don't read anything into it and don't try to push it either way.

Now for the assumption that all predominantly Muslim nations are undemocratic and misogynistic. Indonesia has more Muslims than any other nation on earth, but also lots of Hindus, Christians and various others. Indonesia is incredibly multicultural, with dozens of different ethnic races, religions and languages. It is a democracy, albeit a fledgling one, with free and open elections. I was in Bali during the first democratic elections after the overthrow of the Suharto dictatorship. It was great to see the businesses and vehicles decorated with the banners of the party and candidates of the owner's choice. Something we take for granted, but impossible during the Suharto era if you wanted to stay alive.

Of course Indonesia has some extremist MPs, religious leaders and lobbyists. What nation, democratic or not, does not suffer from some forms of extremism? But these are the exception, rather than the rule. And Indonesian women, in general, have plenty of say in what happens in their society.

CJ Morgan, go and get some life experience. Try actually leaving Australia, go and experience these countries yourself which you so rightously defend, these people whose honour you fight for. Go and live in their countries, understand them and the way they think, where their opinions and ideals are coming from.....then give me your opinion on muslims. Until then, shut up. You really don't know what you are talking about.
And generally, to the people who keep trying to draw similarities between muslim immigrants and past waves of British / European immigrants - this is an entirely different thing. Muslims generally have no identity with adopted countries of christian faith. Even to a 10th generation 'Australian' Muslim, this would only ever be considered a place to earn a better income, have a better life and a convenient place to breed like rats.

Why did Cronulla happen? Because it had to. Remember that out of the whole day, only a small amount of it was violent and only a small percentage of those involved were violent, contrary to the lying hype by the media.

An example of how this multiculturalism is a major failure is look at the local councils and companies in Sydney who are now too scared to fly the national flag of Australia because of a current history of violence against those who do fly it. Violence committed by children of immigrants. Geez, I wonder where they get their hatred from for they are spoilt by Australian governments.

Wake up Australia, you're prostituting yourself to those who are raping our children.

Boaz_David. Please stop trying to co-opt my opinions. Just because I agree with certain aspects of yours doesn't mean I am with you 100 per cent. For instance: Re: your assessment of Food Law issue with the Muslim mayor who you claim tried to "deny the 87% of non muslim residents the opportunity to partake of 'Ham'(haram) sandwiches at Council/Public functions. He caused community and STATEwide outrage at his discriminatory behaviour. He polarized the community."

Of course it would and should cause outrage etc. However, that is only one aspect of the overall situation in Australia that you have "conveniently?" articulated - one aspect. I suspect that you have jumped on this aspect to attack Islam which seems to be an obsession of yours.

Please consider.

You say:
"So, again, I re-state my view on the 'limits and boundaries' which you so conveniently articulated:

'Where a cultural clash occurs, the predominant culture must prevail'".

David I disagree and agree at the same time - depending on the situation. For instance: If an Aussie is fair dinkum and invites a Muslim person to their home for a meal they are not going to plonk a leg of ham on the table; or if we invite a Catholic to our home on a Friday night we will try and muster up a fish dish of some sort. The same applies to vegans and others who are different to us. I mean that is just being respectful of others’ cultural sensitivities - good manners.

I‘ll concede that multiculturalism relies on goodwill and the Australian principle of fair go. But it is not just the Muslims who don't understand this.

It is a good old and simple Australian cliché that, if want to get along, a little give and take goes a long way. Give and take is an Australian cultural more - do you agree?

Maybe you Boaz are the one that is too demanding, too religio-centric - like the Muslim mayor. Who are you to imply you represent all Aussies? Consider the way you polarise and cause outrage on OLO.

Boaz-David Why can't culture be individual? Haven't you ever met an eccentric person? Why is their behaviour seen as eccentric? Haven't you ever met a genuine misfit who you can't determine where he or she is coming from? Ever heard of true avante garde. For instance: Remember Jesus Christ who started a whole new cultural revolution (which the churches quickly co-opted for their own ends).

trueaussie,

Spot on mate. It's astonishing how little people who support the attitudes CJMorgan (what is that, a legal firm?)does actually know about what life is like in Islamic nations.

I've often found myself scratching my head that leftists in the west support right wing extremists from non-western cultures, instead of reformers, feminists, and the like, in Muslim lands.

This is how we can see the Greens Bob Brown shake hands with bigot, misoginist, and homophobe Keysar Trad at a Stop The War Function!

Yet the Kerry Nettle's, Bob Brown's, and the like, ignore those ex-Muslims who question Islam, who call it barbaric, who want equality for women.

How can the Greens support fascists? Mabye they have similarities after all...

The middle-east is a misoginstic, racist, tribal dump. The sooner it is occupied and westernised, the better for everyone, especially minorities in such nations.

If one good thing is going to come of all this Islamist stuff, it is that westerners are waking up, getting back to our roots, and values attained during the enlightenment.

We never abandoned them, but have forgotten and taken them for granted. I wonder how sick it makes those racist Hizbut Tahrir types to know that their quest for an Islamic state has awakened us to our roots, that all their entire cause and culture will amount to was as a wake up call for the west, for us to realise who we are (instead of copping nihilistic leftists tell us our culture is a meat pie), what our values are, and crush those who don't believe in universal human rights.

All they ever were was a mosquito scratching on the west's leg for a millisecond.

Western culture is impenetrable for it is fluid, it adapts. Islamic values are rigid, like concrete.

Their entire value structure was built on weak foundations, and as such, will collapse onto the scrapheap of history along with communism, totalitarianism, and all the other -ism's that ran into the mighty west.

Benjamin,

Again mate, you have no idea do you. Stop listening to the words of hate from Bushie Boy. Being muslim is not equal to Fascism. It's those filled with hate like you that cause trouble.

You attack non christians for being backwards but mate, you're the one.

Note; for my note on 'raping our children' which I wrote...i meant that metaphorically except in some cases.

Ronnie
on the issue of inviting Muslim friends.. I totally agree about not serving pork. (and the vegan one)
You are quite right about a little give goes a long way.. no argument there.

Culture cannot be 'individual'...do some reading.

Bear in mind, that I maintain a strong position, for reasons of debate.
I don't mind if my position is challenged. It helps all of us clarify our thinking.

I suppose I should re-state my position as follows:

"By and large... within reason, the predominant culture should prevail"

but it should never be a legalistic thing, it must be based on common courtesy and manners.

I'm defensive because of acts like the Hume Council mayor, and the idiotic support he got from John Faine on ABC who "could not see what all the fuss was about" (who, is a Jew and not fussed about not eating ham) All he had to do was provide a table of Halal Food and there would not have been a discrimination issue. But no....he denied all the choice, and that I might say was a 'bad choice' on his part.

Its when people start using the LAW against our culture (such as with the CTF v ICV case) and freedom of speech, that I make lines in the sand.

Ronnie, having lived in Malaysia for many years, and experienced first hand the competitive nature of different cultures and communities in every level of society, perhaps I'm more sensitive to the 'endgame' when I see small beginnings.

You know the old saying about the camel with its nose under the tent...thin edge of the wedge etc.. the only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.. all that.

trueaussie: "CJ Morgan, go and get some life experience."

Actually, I have travelled extensively and spent many years working in developing countries, including predominantly Muslim ones. Perhaps you need to get out of whatever benighted suburb you live in more often.

Benjamin: "It's astonishing how little people who support the attitudes CJMorgan (what is that, a legal firm?)does actually know about what life is like in Islamic nations"

No, just an ordinary person who, unlike virtually every commenter here who repetitively posts vituperous, ignorant and bigoted comments in this forum, posts under his real name. As I've said above, I've lived and worked in multicultural, predominantly Muslim countries. From reading the bile you post here, I get the impression your sum total life experience comprises living in southwestern Sydney and reading hate literature on the web.

If I'm incorrect about this assessment, then I can't wait for trueaussie and Benjamin to regale us with the insights gleaned from their deep firsthand knowledge of life in non-Western societies.

C.J. share with us some of your experience, I'd appreciate knowing. It may help us understand you. Which countries, how long ago ?

I think you and spider focused on only the vulnerable exposed emotion in Bens_post, rather than the deeper_aspects about our own awakening and cultural roots etc.

C.J. I think, no matter what your experience is of Islamic Countries, you would have your eyes opened by exposure to footage from Sky news (which I've not been able to trackdown since) of 'jihadists' from many Arab countries in Bosnia.
The activities of some of the Chechens... its mind blowingly cruel and done in the direct name of God. Russians are cruel...but they act in the name of 'man' not God.

If you had seen the faces of these people in Bosnia...and followed the story, especially the conslusion about 'where are they now' (answer being, spread out among Muslim groups in Europe, with names like 'Smith' and 'Jones' deliberately for a reason) you would have at least a greater sense of urgency about our own embryonic situation, and at best, a more realistic understanding of true Islam.

I don't fathom why you cannot see the connection between Amrozis "Jews remember Khaibar" comment and the Hezbollah missile named "Khaibar2" ... keeping in mind that one is Indonesian and Hezbollah Arab in Lebanon... yet they have the same focus on specific battles fought by Mohammed, who is the 'best of mankind'.

Hilaly insulted all Australian men, and women. "Uncovered women are like meat" if they are uncovered...how does anyone know they are Muslim ? clearly his 'you don't understand me' plea is moot.
Mohammed is reported as saying to Muslim women "Suckle your (post pubescent)male servants, so they will be like foster children to you and not seek sexual relations" duh... (I can give you chapter and verse for that)

We are not threatened by 'nominal/cultural' Muslims (which you probably encountered) individually but by the energetic radicals whom they follow.
Which does in turn make the Muslim "community" a cultural and social threat in spite of the nice ones we all know.

"Boaz": I'll consider providing more personal details in the unlikely eventuality that you demonstrate the courage of your convictions by posting in your real name, rather than hiding behind a pseudonym in order to express the objectionable and divisive ideas that you regularly post in this forum.

Really, for those of us who aren't intellectually disabled by adherence to religious dogma, there really isn't all that much that separates the obnoxious statements of people like Hilaly from those that you express repetitively - the issue of the hijab being a classic case in point, not to mention your apparent shared attraction to young girls that must be kept in check, and your shared homophobia.

"Hijab", as I understand it, refers in general terms to the practice of dressing "modestly" according to religious dictates, in order to prevent the inflammation of carnal desire. This seems to me to be very close to some of the ideas you've expressed in this forum concerning Christian ideas of "modesty".

I think you have more in common with Muslim idiots like Hilaly than you are capable of admitting.

Boaz: Culture can be, nay always is, individual - you do some reading.

Why do you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is ill informed or hasn’t read?

David, you are largely informed by your interpretation of the Bible and thus the idea that there is “nothing new under the sun”. Hmmmm. Influence is different to absolute adherence and sheepishness David. Many wolfish ideas out there to corrupt us.

To say culture is only a group thing is to deny the individual’s use of God-given free will to make choices outside the group which in turn suggest that it is imposed by the group rather than individual’s free choice which in turn suggests that those that indeed do choose the Christian way must forego their individuality which in turn is a slight against God (not the church) because God blessed us with free will.

Luther, a well-read person if ever there was one looked into his heart – not the Catholic doctrine. From this self confidence came a new religion - which although influenced by Catholicism, which had strayed from Christ’s message and which itself initially stemmed from Christ’s individual counter- culture, against the grain thing - it too was an individual choice to move outside the Catholic religion which had created a hierarchical system with silly cultural mores and, like Christ, Luther adhered to his own beliefs which in turn informed his culture which started a new group culture. One that allowed the ordinary German person to read the Bible which was entirely different to the Catholic’s position.

Culture is many things Boaz but most of all it is the position we take. On certain levels it is a necessity to hold firm to the individual culture if one wants to be authentic to oneself and the fundamental principles that inform your choices to associate with a group - not the mob mentality. In other words we all have our own position and thus our own culture. Just because you live in a society with a dominant culture doesn’t mean you become a manifestation of that culture

Guess what BJMoron, want to know why I don't post my name? Cos I'm in one of these countries now, you idiot, have been working / travelling in them for years...um, that's kind of what I what implying, sorry you didn't get that, I'll be more direct next time. It would probably take about 12 seconds to find me aswell, probably have my knob cut off for exposing the 'darker' side of my persona. This is why some people like to stay anon. Der!

Ronnie

Culture (from the dictionary)

3. shared beliefs and values of group: the beliefs, customs, practices, and social behavior of a particular nation or people

C.J. Lets look at your insults first.

-Coward (not couragious)
-Objectionable
-Offensive
-Intellectually disabled
-Borderline 'obnoxious'.
-like young girls (with an impure imputation there)
-Homophobic.

Not bad mate for a relatively short post.

Its the Burkah I object to, not the Hijab.

Sharing which countries you have worked in or the type of work is hardly 'personal details'.

Real Name. I am presenting material for which people have been killed, after being tracked down from on-line information.
David is my real middle name, but that's all people will get.
If people want to meet me I'm ok with that, but on neutral ground.
The key is....keeping control rather than exposing yourself to threat.

For evidence of Islamist threats/attacks on government or critical people.. are you serious ? do a google. Theo Van Gogh and his assistant Hirsi Ali
French philosophy teacher, German lawyer defending womens rights attacked and threatened, Mozart Opera issue.

C.J. are you deliberately blind or what ? That's not an insult, just a serious question based on the available facts

David, Raymond Williams in his book "Keywords" says the word culture is "one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language". I think you need to consult his discussion on the topic, or some other relevant academic research on culture, in its entirety before trying to simplify the concept.

Let me summarise for you his work which "has many interrelated modern usages". First, it is " a general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development"; second, a particular way of life, of either a people, a period or a group; third: " the works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity".

Now the first and the third are individual activities that is often alien, or different, to the main culture. Indeed, in a society that truly embraces free thinkers it stands that individual thought would be encouraged. Trying to disassociate oneself from ones culture is the only way to analyse ones culture. These must, therefore, be the domain of individualistic culture that is informed by its own peculiar beliefs, custom, practice and behaviour, especially, in the avante guard and punk scene. These people often transform culture. The individualistic culture quickly finds it followers. Those that don't are the misfits, the eccentrics, outsiders even within breakaway groups. I think it must be possible in a free society to have people that the dominant culture doesn't determine their thinking and development.

Having said that even the dictionary meaning you posit: "shared beliefs and values of group: the beliefs, customs, practices, and social behaviour of a particular nation or people" is wrong. ? Don't believe everything you read David I reject (again) because it is non sequitor to suggest that a person can't reject those "shared" aspects of a dominant culture. Moreover, if a particular nation or people can hold particular "beliefs, customs etc then it necessarily follows that an individual can transgress and develop their own beliefs etc. That is basic reasoning 101. Why do you object so strongly to the possibility that an individual can be different to others in the way I have suggested?

Continued

Also consider it this way. If culture denies the individual with different belief's, customs, and social behaviour then that culture is a fascistic culture because that individual is being coerced or assigned a characteristic that he or she doesn't share - in effect he or she is being forced into a group that has many aspects that he or she doesn't fit nor belong, nor agree with. For instance: it must be a contradiction to refer to Australia as a free country that values the individual and then either co-opt those that are different or exclude them.

Also your belief is based on your faith in a dictionary. Remember the book 1984? Your response is a mechanical response without analysis or reason. To do this is a response that is sadly a behaviour that is very common in our culture.

I think that if culture overrides the individualistic culture (within reason) then it becomes a contradiction. More alarmingly culture becomes a “ solution “ (see Marx); an oppressive tool to exclude annoying transgressors, dissenters,those who are different and those who hold to their own particular cultural mores.

In todays "The Australian" there is an article which says the Government is considering dropping the word "multiculturalism" to be replaced with "integration".

This would reflect an entirely different emphasis and I for one wait in quiet anticipation. Well, perhaps with a letter of encouragement to Andrew Robb. Why did it take so long for them to wake up?

Banjo...THANX for that alert re the dirtiest word in the Australian political/social vocabulary and its soon to be demise.."MultiCulturalism"... at LAST.... kill that word as quick as we can hurl stones at it.
Amen x 7 to Integration ! (add some 'assimilation' and the cosmos will again be in balance)

Ronnie... I am flawed by your inexplicable stubbornness re the word 'culture'. Lets just say it is used in various ways, ONE of which is the shared beliefs of people.. hence we have... 'Cultural Anthropoligists' who study those very shared beliefs.
That...is the meaning I am using. Happy now ? (Heres a piece of chocolate if you are)

Your entrenched 'Individual' culture argument wreaks of post modernism and Western decadence where "every man/girl does what is right in his/her own eyes" which is the very last verse in the book of Judges. (loose updated translation of Ch 21:25)

The extent to which 'in their own eyes' has permeated the values of Western Movies, Art,Media behavior (youth oriented FM stations) and general behavior is like a death stench from Aushwitz at the peak of body burning time.

That stench is nothing less than the putrifying odour of our own cultural suicide.

We are weak, because we are so 'individual' in outlook. The Leb Muslim in Sydney I'm corresponding with has 200 cousins ! He regards the grandchildren of his grandparents other brothers and sisters as his cousins. That is clan solidarity. We don't need to go that far but to re-capture a greater sense of extended family past first cousins would be wonderful.

Individual difference... should be to the extent where it jepordizes the moral health or values solidarity of the group. (difference in an enhancing or upbuilding way is ok) If it is.. such a person should leave the group. (Church, Company, Club etc)

Boaz_David,

What is very interesting about the article yesterday, re MC, is:-

a. Will the Government drop MC in favour of Integration. and

b. What stance will Labor take on the issue.

Before Grammae Campbell and Pauline Hanson, both majors had a bi-partisan policy on immigration and related issues because they reckoned that the matters were too sensative for the public. So they kept a closed shop and gave us the mushroom treatment. This could open up a whole new can of worms unless they keep the lid on until after the election.

Time will tell, but I will let OLO know if I hear anything. I will be putting feelers out.

By the way if anyone knows any further developments in the Melbourne taxi drivers issue, I would like to know, and also anything about the Gold Coast attempted honour killing also.

Could be interesting times ahead.

Boaz David. I don't understand your response. You really need to lift your game. You say that you are "flawed". Well yes your debating is very flawed. If you put as little effort into to understanding other posters arguments as do in your responses, then I can see why you fail to respond in an appropriate and sensible manner.

What do you mean "here's a piece of chocolate if you are"? Is that sensible debating or childish patronising nonsense? I think you need to just refute my arguments using the accepted methods. Are your ill-manners an example of Christian culture?


You say: "Your entrenched 'Individual' culture argument wreaks (sic) of post modernism and Western decadence where "every man/girl does what is right in his/her own eyes" … . Boaz you rely heavily on emotional rhetoric when someone disagrees with you. For instance: Your man/girl allusion is irrelevant here.
Explain what you mean by "entrenched" in this context and its relevance. What is your problem with post modernism? And I would really like to know how you come to the conclusion that "western decadence" is a product of "individualism". I was thinking along the lines of it being an individual (like Jesus)to hold firm and refuse to go along with the decadence of western culture. Why do you assume otherwise? Is it because questioning your ideas somehow suggests badness and decadence? Are you that naïve? Boaz you can't refute the argument so you went with emotional rhetoric.

Boaz you say: "The extent to which 'in their own eyes' has permeated the values of Western Movies, Art,Media behavior (youth oriented FM stations) and general behavior is like a death stench from Aushwitz at the peak of body burning time."

"Death stench from Aushwitz"; "body burning time" you say Boaz. Trying to evoke a bit of emotion there too Boaz? And the quotation marks around “in their own eyes” suggest I used these words in this context. This is not he case. Hardly methods of a serious and sensible debater interested in broadening our understanding of society in an honest manner

You say: "That stench is nothing less than the putrifying (sic) odour of our own cultural suicide." This is just silly David. Maybe you need to be a little more of an individual and hold to good Christian manners instead of trying to appease those that are looking for unrealistic and often fascistic solutions.
.
You say: “We are weak, because we are so 'individual' in outlook.” No Boaz in the end it will be the individual who resists decadence. I think individualism in the face of others flawed ideology and cultural mores is a strength. Hence my earlier reference to Jesus.

You say: "Individual difference... should be to the extent where it jepordizes (sic) the moral health or values solidarity of the group." No Boaz - your "moral health" is very subjective and the "values solidarity" of a group may be very unhealthy for society in the term. You have written a meaningless sentence in the context of a discussion on social cohesion.

You say: "(difference in an enhancing or upbuilding (sic) way is ok)"

If it is..(I assume you mean isn't) such a person should leave the group. (Church, Company, Club etc)"

Your punctuation is confusing. Nevertheless, the problem is only such because often difference is seen as a negative for political, personal reasons when in fact a persons' individual slant on things may be a positive. To suggest that a person with a different position should leave a group goes against the principles of democracy. Tell me what do you do when an individual who doesn’t fit your mould and refuses to leave? Can't you see the Aushwitz signs in the distance here too?

To deny the individual and impose your groups culture (even in your narrow sense)is to start down the track of monoculturalism and that will lead to evil. It really floors me that you can see that David.

David is your position representative of the Christianity?

Banjo...I'll keep my ears to the ground :)

Dear Ronnie

I mean't 'floored' rather than 'flawed' ... but I do have my faults as you diligently sought to point out.

I was simply responding to your stubborn intransigent insistence about the meaning of 'culture'.

My use of colorful language is deliberately intended to wake up the frog as the temperature in the beaker approaches 'critical' and it dies without even realizing. No apologies for that.

"in their own eyes" is a quotation from Judges 20:21.

It simply illustrates that without a common cultural base line, or traditions agreed to by all, people will do their own thing, and often that 'thing' will be quite harmful to the group.

I don't decry individualism per se, it is a good thing, but only where it benefits the group rather than tearing it apart.
All groups have opinion leaders. If those opinion leaders take the group down an unhealthy path, they are culpible.

Economic and Immoral (in my view) interests, go to much effort to influence our 'group' for their own benefit. This needs to be exposed and extricated.

One example is where the parents of Bilal Skaf tried to re-characterize the rape victims as 'sluts' and to portry him as their beloved son who can do no wrong.

cheers.

Benjamin,

I did not realise people thought of Greeks as non-white Europeans! How funny..

In response to your view, this is my own personal experience.
My father is Greek, he was born in Greece and yes he is proud of this fact. He came to Australia as a little boy, with my grandparents (who define hard-working) and for 4 years worked where ever the Australian Government told them without complaint and let me tell you, it was no walk in the park. They were happy to be given the opportunity to try and make a life for their family.

My father and my uncle studied hard learnt the language and became prominent specialist doctors who have given much back to the community. This is also despite much racism, and yes, it was REAL racism.

Does he resent Australia? Does he regard this as a bank, to educate his kids? No way, Australia is his heart and his home. Yet, he still calls himself a GREEK-Australian. Can you really not understand this?

My grandparents LOVE Australia, they have lived here for 40 years and will not go back to Greece. I ask them why, and they say this is their home. But they still consider themselves Greek-Australian.

In honour of their culture and my heritage how proud I am of them and my family, if someone asks about my last name, I call myself Greek-Australian as well. Now you may put this down to an “embarrassing sense of Greek Nationalism”, but its more than that.

My mother was born here in Sydney, she is Australian (of WHITE European background).

Her father gave distinguished service in the Australian Army for all of her life and experienced much atrocity for our nation. My mother and aunty and I proudly go to the Anzac Day memorials and shed a tear for him. I have been to Gallipoli and my heart ached and still does ache for the Australians who died.

So what does that make me?

Continuing on Benjamin,
Just because I say I am Greek-Australian does not mean I am ashamed of being Australian.
I can only explain it like this, when I go to Greece and visit my family there and hear about my history, when I work for my father and I hear old Greek patients speaking in Greek, when I hear Greek music on the radio, when I go to my Greek church and see the religious traditions that have been performed for thousands of years, something inside me connects and says yes that is a part of me.

And when you see other Greek-Australians who feel the same way, it is really special to be able to share that feeling. BUT I am also equally Australian, proud of what my grandfather did for this country, proud to be an Australian in this world and when I look out the plane window and see Sydney Harbour I sigh with relief and know that I’m home, in my “REAL home”.

So yes, I AM a proud young Greek-Australian and I am sorry that you truly do not know the wonderful feeling that it is to be proudly part of two cultures
AND
I am TRULY Australian as are all my educated friends from school and uni, born here and abroad, from all different backgrounds including “white European”, Korean, Chinese, Indian, Lebanese, Italian, Greek, Serbian, Armenian, Kurdish, Turkish, Portugese, French, German, Persian, Assyrian, Jamacian-Scottish even!

We see ourselves, the future of Australia, and we are proudly truly 100% Australian and we are just as proud of our cultural heritage and we do not think that is mutually exclusive!

If thats what you call an embarrassed sense of Greek nationalism, then fine I am an embarrasing Greek Nationalist and proud of it! But its not only white European Australians who view Australia as their true home, the rest of us do too.

Dear Sof84
I read your posts, seemed to be mainly directed at Ben, but I noticed some material relating to something I've said a fair bit about in other threads/posts.

The term 'Greek Australian' (or..any 'Ethnicity'-Australian).

The impression I gain from your quite passionate posts, is that you truly feel 'aussie'. I don't know why you even need to mention your ethnic background. You are 'bi-racial' anyway.. 'White(presumably anglo)+Greek. So, why not simply describe yourself as an Aussie of Anglo/greek ancestry ?
I hope this does not seem pedantic, but you're certainly not 'Greek' as you mum is 'White' (and could be a mix herself like me Anglo/Scot).
Sure, you identify with your hard working forebears and are proud of their achievements. But if I can say...thats not due to them being 'Greek' its due to them as 'people' appreciating the wonderful opportunity provided by Australia and thus giving their best for the future. If we suggest that the things we are proud of are 'ethnically related'... we are pretty close to racist, (in the most benign,unoffensive way) by considering our specific ethnicity as the source of our achievement.

When it comes to achievement, ethnicity is not a factor. Culture certainly can be, and in the interests of reducing racial/ethnic competitiveness, its better to refer to culture than race. Perhaps thats your intent ? But best of all, is referring to our nationality first,rather than ethnicity. I'm Australian....of such and such background) (If people ask)
As a greek bloke I chatted with last Monday said "My children will be more Aussie than me.. and theirs more again".

In the long run...does it matter what our ethnic heritage is ?
Let the oldies enjoy their lives without pressure sure...but lets all work toward an 'ethnicity free' Austalian identity :)

Sof84 and Boaz

On the 28th of October I was listening to a Greek-Australian old timer telling a goup of us how proud he was that Greece on that day (Oct 28) at the outbreak of WW2 told the Musilini fascist mob a definte "no" - that Greece would not fight with them but against the Nazis. As a Greek he fought for our freedom and the freedom he and his family now enjoy as Greek Australians.

We have no right to deny Australians from Greece their proud heritage. Also, for instance, do we have a right to deny immigrants from a nation whose philosphers have contributed so much to our culture? Indeed, didn't we base our ideals of democracy on the ancient Greeks' thinking? Yes we have. Greek Australian is fine by me.

Greek Australian is a term that is only a little about ethnicity and a lot about history. I felt privileged and humbled as this fellow exchanged stories with another old mate. Sof 84 you have much to be proud of as a Greek Australian and those that made the decision to allow immigration made a wise choice that has in the long run enriched Australia's heritage.

Boaz David I checked out Judges 20:21 and I can't find the quote in my King James. ? Listen mate if you find the quote can you let me know further up the line.

Hi Boaz ,

Thank you for your comments.
I can see the point you are making in saying that by being proud of my family’s achievements and by attributing it to their race means in a sense I am being racist.
I think I did not entirely express myself how I wanted. I was probably a bit over-passionate as I was offended by the way Benjamin referred to Greek-Australians.

You are correct in that I am proud of my family’s achievements and this is not due to their ‘race’ but because of their achievements standing on their own as wonderful achievements. I agree with you that their achievements are not necessarily due to their ‘race’ and we should not view things in this way.

What I meant was, stemming from this feeling of, “proudness”, I guess I also call myself Greek as well as Australian to honour my grandparents and my father’s heritage, and to honour the Greek part of me as well as the Australian. This stems from, in part, being proud of them and who they are and what they have done. Honouring family and culture is a very important part of being Greek and not to acknowledge it would go against this and how I have been raised.

I think that maybe, Australians (or at least a big majority) who call themselves say Greek-Australian, Italian-Australian etc, are not so much attempting to be divisive or saying it because feel that their own culture is superior, but rather it is said in the sense of honouring that part of themself, of their identity and that is why their ethnic heritage matters to them and their sense of self.

Its not that I walk around saying I AM GREEK AUSTRALIAN EVERYONE and shove it down people’s throats, I have a very Greek sounding name, so often people either assume I am or ask me and even when I start off saying, I am Australian, they ALWAYS say, no but where are you from.. So I end up having to explain and say Greek-Australian rather than just Australian.

I also understand how you would think that I am not Greek, in your definition of being Greek, as you think of it as a matter of bloodline. Technically I am a dual citizen of Greece and Australia, with dual nationality and a Greek passport, christened Greek Orthodox so in Greece, I am considered Greek. It is a traditional culture also in the sense that as it is my dad and I have a Greek surname they definitely consider me Greek and try to marry me off to their sons or grandsons he he : ) .

But, seriously, I think considering yourself Greek (or anything) is more than simply what bloodline you have and as I have been brought up all my life observing Greek and Greek Orthodox traditions, and I speak Greek, I feel Greek inside at the same time as feeling Australian.
Even though my fathers blood is not ‘Australian’ he lives and breaths Aussie culture and so he feels Australian even though he technically is not (is only a permanent resident).

Your Greek friend is right, his kids WILL be more Aussie, as all my full blooded Greek cousins can show, but it does not mean they deny that part of themselves. They are all Aussie but still feel Greek as well, some have married Anglo-Australians, some Greek/Italian-Australians and so their children acknowledge their own mixed ancestral history just as do I.
Hmm tough : )

Interestingly, I have a friend who is an adopted child to a Greek mother and father who came to Australia when they were young like my father. She is technically, of Anglo-Australian blood. Yet she has been brought up with Greek culture, speaks fluent Greek, practises Greek Orthodoxy, has Greek relatives etc
I think of her as Greek-Australian…

Thank you also to ronniepeters for your lovely comments about Greek culture it makes me really genuinely happy to see other people appreciate the special things about Greeks that I do, and I hope Benjamin will learn to also.
Sorry to divert the discussion, just had to say my bit.

Dear Sof and Ronnie

The ref is Judges 21:25 sorry about that.. *I was wrong* :)

But Sof.. in regard to your 'Greekishness'.. please read the 24th verse of that reference. I'd be interested if it strikes you in a kind of negative way about 'MultiCulturalism' specially considering the bigger context and the statement in v 25.
To see the full background to this... and the moral deterioration of the community which led them to this point, you should read Chapter 19 right to the end.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=19&version=31

I'd love to get your feedback on this because it touches on some rather sensitive socio/political/religious cultural and legal points.
There is also the fact that this is historical narrative rather than divine commandment. (an important point)

But clearly, the Benjaminites as a 'separate' community had different ideas about culpability. Community solidarity caused them to protect the vile rapists, because 'They were Benjaminites' The end of this tragic episode in human history is found in those last 2 verses.
Ch 21:24-25. They hang there... lingering...for us to ponder.

But back to Sof

I don't think anyone wants to deny anyones heritage. But glorying in ones ethnic or cultural 'achievements' is... well.. don't you think its tiny bit like "We are better than you mob"? :)
Isn't it better to regard them as 'human' achievements ? rather than 'racial' ones ? We should equally be able to rejoice at an Italians or a Jews, or an indigenous persons achievements and contributions to human understanding no ?

I don't think the invention of TV by my ethnic forebear John Logie Baird was something to say "Oh Look..we 'Scots' did ...
But Sof.. here is the REAL test :) Was Alexander the Great 'Greek' or Macedonian ? :) wooooooo

Nothing in the media here yet,but the word I get from England is that the two British National Party officials charged with "inciting racial hatred" have been aquitted of all charges. This after two court cases. I would not be surprized if the government makes further appeal. As with what they did to Pauline Hanson here, one object is to bleed the finances of the persecuted.

This is a blow for Labour's Multicultural and "open door" immigration policies and the BBC was shown to be completely biased in their news stories.

The Poms really have made a mess of their society and this decission should help the BNP vote in forthcoming elections.

But it may be a little late to make Britton a decent society again.

Amen Banjo

A decent society is one where the citizens are in control of it, and hence their own destiny.

The Lambing Flat riots were partly caused by the Diggers suddenly realizing that their cultural identity hinged on a British treaty with China, rather than the wishes of the Australians here.

Chinese society is quite decent.. European society is quite decent, but they are all different. Put both together in similar numbers... 'fireworks'.

RACISM TEST (continued)
I'm waiting for Sofs response here.. ^_-
More.. if we have an "Im proud to be Italian/Greek/Serb/French/Scottish/English/Welsh" view.... and we then cite all manner of cultural/racial acheivement on which our 'pride' is based... how do we react when suddenly some Jew comes along and says "Ah..but 'WE' have xyx number of Nobel Prize winners" and blah blah :)

Or..some Russian or some other of any kind who we realize had a few more cultural 'points' than us....

This is why I totally believe 'ethnic/cultural/racial' pride is shallow and dangerous. Its as meaningful as 'Fastest gun in the West'.. which is true until someone faster comes along.

Australia...is Australia... and we should be producing 'Australians'...not 'greek/italian/Jewish/Chinese/Pakistani'Australians.

Be 'AUSTRALIAN' first..and let your ethnicity be a humble and unassuming afterthought.

Boaz: Can't you see the hypocrisy of your post? Don't you see Australians are ethnic too (see the dictionary)? What of the Indigenous peoples?

If a person is the sum of their actions, then aren't we as a society the sum of the nation that immigrants have built. Don't you think that the various attributes and histories enrichens our muticultural nation? I do.

I think you are wrong David to claim that pride in one's heritage is shallow and dangerous. And it only becomes racist if we start ordering people to be "Australian first" based on something other than our beginnings.

I think you can be, for instance, a Greek Australian and celebrate your culture and be a primarily Australian. Indeed, it is this diversity that makes us so Asutralian. Are you seriously suggesting that the Greeks not hold their Greek festivals etc.? That is Australia.

The different cultural and historical attributes are what makes us Australian. For somemone to deny their history and even their racial origins is up and up ethnocentricism and perhaps even racism David. It is even denying our Australian history.

I think most people - and, especially the level-headed, well-written posts of those who have some pride in their heritage -can tell the difference between jingoism, patriotism, racism and plain old humble respect for the positive achievements of our foremothers and fathers.

Thanks for directing me to the passage in Judges. I think that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, must be read in light of the Golden Rule. I think this Rule governs all other passages. For me it is the King - the best and most high authority in the Bible. It also points to importance of the individual as the one with the ultimate responsibilty for his or her choices

Ronnie...
this is a fascinating discussion.

I find that your comment 'denial of ones racial background=Ethnocentrism' ? :) man.. its the other way around.. *slap* (I just read Judges again 0_- )
Seriously.. ethno-centrism is where we see everything in terms of our own ethnicity.

My objective is to free us from our 'ethnic' baggage, and simply be 'Australians'... that in fact includes the rich divesity you mention.

I think the main area we are not quite in accord with is the idea of 'Australian-ness'. For me.. it emerges in the 2nd stanza of McKella's poem...in specific contrast to the first...

Could you have a look at this and make a comment ?

here is a link.
http://www.anointedlinks.com/my_country.html

On the 'Greek festivals'.....I'm of 2 minds on that. I don't even see the need for 'Scottish' festivals. (and I'm part Scot) or 'English'... all they do is underline 'we' and 'you' rather than 'we/us/together'. I don't think banning either ethnic associations or ethnic festivals would work, but a gradual discouragement coupled with a gradual but active encouragement of 'Australian-ness' would possibly solve this. I don't believe it is 'racist' to promote national unity, on the contrary, it appears to my current thinking that it is racist to emphasize ones own ethnic heritage. But that kind of racism is quite benign. It would become more overt and serious in a time of 'crisis'. Note the final event in Judges ? "They each went to their own clan". (I suspect in disgust at the terrible events they had witnessed and participated in)

Its probably my Christian faith which sets me free from ethnic heritage, as I've realized that we are 'one body though many parts'
different, yet one.
Perhaps thats a good note to finish on... (with a link of course)
Romans 12:3 ff
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=12&version=31
also
1 Corinthians 12:14 ff
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=12&version=31
cheers

I know but cannot share it,
My love is otherwise.

David. Consider these lines in conjunction with the final lines of Dorathea McKellar’s poem.

All you who have not loved her,
You will not understand –
Though earth holds many splendours,
Wherever I may die,
I know to what brown country
My homing thoughts will fly.

I think the poem is expressing the difficulty she has of articulating her great love for Australia. “I know but cannot share it.”

She is, I think, expressing the “otherness” that the French Jewish philosopher (just mentioning his origins and religion to help with your perspective) Jacques Levinas interrogated. (Difficult reading).

Put it this way David, as men, we cannot know the feelings of women in certain aspects of our humanity. The female will always be Other in certain ways.

The most undeniable Other is death. We cannot truly know death, we can know of and have faith about it but we cannot know. When we see death or come close we are alerted to our own mortality but still there is an unbridgeable gap between, as the philosophers like to say, the signified (death) and the signifier (the word or our limited understanding of death).

Back to DM’s poem – she is trying to bridge this gap between her knowing and the perspective of others. This love is very individual but it does not mean that others can not feel similar love.

It is only natural for an immigrant born overseas to have “homing thoughts”. If we can understand DM’s love, we can use this knowledge to try to understand and immigrant’s feelings. The Golden Rule.

Now the difference between a recent immigrant and the generations that follow is more to do with creating a relationship with their new home.

“All you who have not loved her,
you will not understand.”

Love grows from appreciation of another’s virtues.

Romans 12 is wisdom with a capital “W”. I Corinthians 12:14 ff tells me that the differences in individual parts of a whole are important in respect of creating a unified working whole.

Hi Ronnie
well... I think that about does it. I can't fault your last post or disagree with it.

Your comments about Romans 12 are appreciated, and that is my own position. Different, yet one.

As long as our differences are always viewed in the context of the whole (Australian) then I don't see any reason to argue with them.
After all, if a nose cannot exist apart from its attachment to and reliance on, the body, and thats all I ask. Its that connection.
Body first.. individual 'difference' second.

Then, we are all pushing in the same direction, but with different tools. How poor we would be without yummy asian foods, or those of various other cultures. Customs which are seen to be worthwhile will also rub off on others.

I use as an example a tram trip I made a while back. The passengers were mixed ethnically. It was around Burwood area (Melbourne) and I'd say 50% Asian/Chinese, mostly girls (must have been a girls school in the area.. aah..yes there is PLC) and the others were Anglo/Aussie types.
The Asian girls were polite, warm hearted, innocent looking.
The small group of Anglo Aussie chics within my view were 'feisty, arrogant,self absorbed and loud'.

I know we can't generalize overall, but it did stand out. This says something about our family values etc. Chinese culture is not about subjugated women either.. its quite matriarchal. Mothers are often tyrants. (about education etc)

On that trip I also encountered some Asian boys who I astounded after I overheard one of them speaking in Indonesian, by yapping at them in Indo :) They were stunned. I had to ask how come they (as ethnic chinese) were using 'Indonesian' in Australia when talking to each other.
Then there was another.. a girl who looked very ethnically 'malay' to me, and as she passed to get off the tram, I spoke in Malay to her, she looked like she had seen a ghost :) (malay and indo are very similar)

Anyway... great to have some interesting and studied dialogue.
cheers.

ronnie Peters,
If B_D cannot find fault with your last post, I certainly can.

Your interpretation of the first verse of My Country is absolutly incorrect. You should read the whole verse.

The first verse is an acknowledgement of her British heritage and then she goes on to say , "My love is otherwise" and then the new verse; "I love a sunburnt country".

She has no problem in identifying the country she loves.

I thought every school kid in Australia would understand this most moving and acurate poem.

Banjo your criticism is mostly unfounded. The reason I deleted the first six lines was to keep under the word limit. My intention was not to be disrespectful or disregard Mackellar’s love of Britain. Also, the two lines I referred to are the lines that David asked me to comment on. Their deletion didn’t affect the gist of my comment.

Having said that, I did interpret the poem as a whole (as one must do). Your comments about poor understanding are unfair and unhelpful. My position is also that it is a moving and accurate poem. I wasn’t questioning that at all. I think the poem captures the difficulty of transition for others and especially immigrants who still love Britain. This is why I referred David to her final words.

The mistake I made was to not type in the two lines when I drew attention to her situation. I said: “I think the poem is expressing the difficulty she has of articulating her great love for Australia. ’ I know but cannot share it.’” I should have either put some ellipsis in or included it. I deleted the second line to save words again thinking that David would pick on the fact that I was referring to the two lines he asked me to comment on. This was poor writing on my part and thank you for picking me up on it. Your caustic response is pointless.

Also, I wasn’t only talking about identifying, but transition, forging new relations, discovering new virtues and love of old and new country – like Mackellar? Eventually ones heart finds its true home. Even though Britain “Is still running in your veins”. “Your” means “others” - thus transition.

My school text was “Call of the Gums”. Ian V. Hansen, 1962. However, I think it a rather silly notion that if one reads some old Australian poetry one is somehow more Aussie than others who haven't.

The irony is I think immigrants should feel free to mention their first homeland and yet you get toxic because I didn’t overtly refer to Mackellar’s beginnings?

ronnie peters,
Well you are a bit touchy if you think my correcting you was caustic or toxic.

You are still saying that she has "difficulty in expressing her love for Australia" I dissagree completly. She expresses her feelings beautifly, that is precisely what makes the poem so good.

The line "I know but cannot share it" is refering to Briton.

Oh, and I do not hold that knowledge of older poems makes one more Aussie. How you come to that conclusion is beyond me.

Sorry if I upset you.

Banjo You criticise others for not considering the whole. Then you selectively pull out words to suit your position. The words I deleted after “I know but cannot share it, ” which were “My love is otherwise” and the reasons I deleted those and the first six lines and the mention of the British things like “ ordered woods” in the those lines indicate that I knew the line referred to Britain.

“I think the poem is expressing the difficulty of articulating her great love for Australia.” I concede she has indeed expressed herself very well. I gathered the idea of the difficulty in articulating (probably just me projecting my own inadequacies at not being able to get my message across to you) from the poem as whole, but especially the lines:
“All you have not loved her,
You will not understand –“

I picked up on the difficulty of others (Britians) not understanding.

I think that she expresses the difficultly in articulating the reason for her love of her country – not in the sense of her craft being flawed but because of the awesomeness of the blessings this country offers. I thought this was evident when she says: ”All you who have not loved her, You will not understand.” I think that she is humbly saying that her words cannot express it - you have to experience the love –it is difficult to express the country’s greatness. This not only says a lot about her country but about her craft. Words can never express some things and by acknowledging that she shows more than by just saying, for instance: “ All you who have listened to my poem will understand?”..

You say: “I do not hold that knowledge of older poems makes one more Aussie.” So do you agree then that to experience that which inspired Mackellar gives her words more weight?

I also think that to be born in one country and then think of another when close to death suggests a change of sentiment that would be difficult.

Well...I think the last few posts have been quite valuable.
In spite of the mild 'toxcity' :) The simple fact that we are grappling with these important ideas of identity transference.. is wonderful.

What more could one ask in a debate than that people would discuss the meaning of a definitive early Aussie poem ?

"Knowledge of early poems" making us 'more' Aussie ? I think it does actually, not in a forceful dogmatic way, but in that it enables us to see that the early pioneers shared such feelings and sought to express them so passionately. It re-inforces our shared identity and culture.

G20 RIOT...and this topic.

On the general subject of MultiCulturalism, the protest/riot really showed the one major point I have been rather laboring all along.
*Radicals drive agendas*. I watched myself as we moved up Collins street that the real ratbags suddenly started to run 'around' the police horses, and others tried to spook them. Then, (though I didn't see this) the radicals donned the white overalls and attacked police.
What was the news worldwide ? G20 issues ? Nope :) it was "Violence erupts in Melbourne"

I have a cheeky (possibly foolhardy) idea. Organize about 10 blokes in Martial arts gear including head protectors, to make their way to the front line (under the guise of being protestors)Then..turn around and bold letters on their back will say something like "Peace not War" or perhaps a more 'Christian' flavored message :) it would have got WORLD wide attention :) ....*shuffles off to the planning meeting*

So, just as the radicals hijacked the protest... they will do the same in racial/cultural issues.

I don't beleive it's necessarily daring to be different. We are all some what different and a new cultural experience can only add to the mosaic so to speak. However, there is a big difference between migrating to a country and becoming a genuine citizen while celebrating your cultural history and migrating to impose your culture and religious dictates. France and Britain(to name two)are not experiencing such violent anti-social behavior from their Muslim population because they, the Muslims, are being treated differently but, because the Muslims demand to be treated differently and are not. Which is at the base of the Mufti's meat comment, and the Canadian Muslim demanding to publically pray in the aisle of a passenger jet in flight, and yesterdays removal of several Imams from American flight for taking to the aisle for public prayer while the plane was in flight.
This is push push push and nothing to do with multiculture but, rather to dominate and overtake the existing cultural norms and values.
Racism, tolerance, and multiculturalism are being weaponized and no longer hold their intended value. They're being used as battering rams to tear down western society. Did you read the story in BBC news of the fellow who was charged with revving his car in a racist manner as two Muslims were walking by. I feel for that poor girl who felt compelled to defend her heritage. These actions I wrote above are not about heritage and we need to be able to discriminate. To discriminate also means to use good judgement.