In response to the smug and condescending remarks directed towards the poster 'obviously':

'BrainDrain' - Who the hell do you think you are? "..shows their own ignorance more than their intelligence", "Your youth can be forgiven you..", "your limited wisdom can be appreciated and allowed for", "..you might do well to consider that almost everyone here has more intelligence than you..", "..you may gain in knowledge and wisdom - it will take a lifetime but the benefits exceed the disadvantages of not gaining wisdom", "You would be wise to learn that and give a little more thought to your next posts", "Obviously obviously has learned to use SpellCheck since his/her first post"..

How conceited and patronising! Tell me BrainDrain, what's the difference between 'hoard' and 'horde'? You used the incorrect word four times in one of your posts. You even spelt 'obviously' incorrectly in the same sentence that you were criticising that poster's errors (which happen to be errors made by many people)!

'Steve Madden' - "I think you mean 'as of last year we accepted African refugees'" - what on Earth else could 'obviously' have meant? People with the incredible intelligence of yourself and BrainDrain should realise straight away that 'obviously' is writing how he/she speaks, and in that sense expressed him/herself perfectly well! The content was pretty clear, and the thoughts and sentiments were genuine - in fact it contained no personal snubs, addressed the topic at hand and was generally quite polite.

'sneekeepete' - "..to ask what benefit you will receive assumes that you deserve one in the first place" - Another snobby snub! Australia's current Multiculturalism policy states: "This multiculturalism policy provides a framework for maximising the social, cultural and economic benefits that cultural diversity brings to all Australians". SO isn't it perfectly fine for 'obviously' to ask what those benefits are?
(ref: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/settle/_pdf/united_diversity.pdf)

'Carl' - "..have a bit of compassion mate" - didn't 'obviously' say "I am a human and I have a soul, and when I see people starving in certain countries etc, i say i would like to help them"?

Yet again the sneekemeister is stung into action! a snobby snub indeed Ev! I think the kid can fight his own battles

I simply contend asking what is in it for me implies there ought to be something in it for me - and for some maybe there is nothing - so what? - I dont operate under that kind of Weltanschauung. Life is more than self interest for some of us.

He can ask what is in it for him and I can say maybe bugger all. That still does not remove the right of any one who is legitimately entitled to live some where to be bothered by others who feel uncomfortable about nothing.

And BD - To say say need some work indeed!

I agree there are Islamists who want to rule the world - In the words of Mel Brooks in The History of the World part 1 and reprised in Robin Hood Men in Tights and earlier still in the Pproducers "It's good to be King!" - a whole lot of people want to rule the world.

So did the Russians we thought and they thought that was an American plan - we think the chinese want to - or some do - like I keep on saying constant demonising of any group radicalises them - that does not abbrogate them of the responsibiltiy to play nive - or to forgive them their sins when they dont - it is just simply shows us the need to be sensible - and that is sadly lacking here from time to time

The dominant theme here is every that Islamist yearns thus as a collective - every Muslim who is not an extremist is just bidding their time or giving tacit supoprt - the basic tenet of the faith is to dominate the world etc etc

As for MC - the first fleeters did not meld and merge - the Irish for example were vilified - and that persisted well into the second half of the 20th Century - particualrly if they were Catholic

LOGIC
no, the Aboriginals did not by and large blend/mix interbreed, but some did.

The case of indigenous people who's culture is so vastly different from that of the newcomers, and who's physiology is so vulnerable to previously unknown diseases, makes them a special case.

Australia's identity has grown up largely apart from the Indigenous and they and/or their culture have not been assimilated into it.

This does not mean that such a goal is not a worthy one.

As i've argued in a separate discussion I think its a good idea.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=164

I had an interesting discussion with 2 yr 9 boys at Gym yesterday, they had not even heard of "Multiculturalism", nor could they articulate what is their own culture. but a few questions quickly showed they have one. "Does you mother serve each person individually or do you take food from common bowls set on the table" "What language do you speak" "What do you do when you are introduced to someone"

French Culture. "Kiss the hand of females/Shake the hand of males"
Maori Culture "Rub noses"
Japanese Culture "Bow"
Australian Culture "Shake hands of both genders"

Ours is just as valid as any other.

Let me be clear though, I argue in that link that the Australian culture of tomorrow should absorb as much good from our present cultural mix as possible. That way we will be enriched rather than divided.
I prefer the 'Body' metaphor... hands, feet, arms noses, ears..all are connected to the body and have no life of their own apart from it.
The "Body" is the culture which had come to be up to the end of WW2.

"Reflections on a Multicultural Nation"

My view is different as I do not believe we are a multicultural society. We have been multi-racial since 1788, but not multicultural despite the best efforts and millions of dollars spent since 1970. The term being adopted from Canada by Al Grazzby because it was fashionable.

The basis of our present day culture,adopted mainly from UK, is the rule of law,our justice/legal system and our democratic political system. We insist that these basics take precedence over any cultural or religous directive affecting all persons in Australia.

I cannot think of any other culture, maybe NZ, that is TOTALLY acceptable or in line with our Australian culture. There are many aspects of other cultures that are not allowed in Australia. Either because they are against our laws or socially unacceptable.

Example of these are:- Polygamy, honour killings, pedophilla, incest, bull fighting, cockfighting, some foods not allowed, oppression of womren and female circumcission to name a few. Then we allow freedom of religous practice, choice of religion, equality of women and a democracy that many countries/culrures do not have.

Therfore we have far too many differences with other cultures to claim we are multicultural.

For the want of a better word, we are mono-cultural, with an acceptance of aspects of other cultures that do not transgress on the basic values of our own culture.

There are many flaws in the imposed policy of multiculturalism and the differing meanings of the term to different people. The sooner the term goes and we look to intergration instead of highlighting differences the better we will all be.

Why in the world would i want to be like you Banjo?

Surely there better Australian role models than monocultural xenophobics?

“the world is bigger than you and your suburb, have a bit of compassion mate”-Carl
one of the more uncompassionate statements of herd.

Carl

Wow, my family and friends live in this suburb(<not winging ,just a fact), which has greatly increased in all forms of crime, due directly to this policy.
Once again, the safety of your (fellow Australians)<had to say it) is apparently worth less then that of the refugee. Don’t accuse me of exaggeration, as the statistics cannot be released, until the pc is dropped(fact).
Maybe, just maybe, when the pc is dropped, and the statistics are released, peoples opinion like yours might immediately change.

Your statement is infinitely and dangerously wrong.

First and most obvious, my compassion has been stated in a previous post “I am a human and I have a soul, and when I see people starving in certain countries etc, I say I would like to help them, BUT NOT at the peril of myself family and friends, my freedom to feel safe and general way of life, >we need to support them in their country< so that part of your statement is WRONG, was that not compassion in an commonsense way?

secondly “the world is bigger then you and your suburb”. How can I answer this, it has an infinite amount of responses. The world to, is bigger then this country in which we are discussing, why not mention that to the author, “author, the world is bigger then you and your country”, Where does that statement lead?

This country is full of suburbs correct, as this topic is immigration and the multicultural policy, its effects are first and foremost, going to be felt by me, and ALL INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR SUBURBS! Is the world bigger then all Australia’s suburbs? Your statement could never be answered.

“the world is bigger than you and your suburb, have a bit of compassion mate”-Carl
Well i say my suburb in Australia is like a brick in a house. If to many bricks crumble and brake, then the house will fall down! And Some are showing cracks.