FrankGol,

Like some, you formed a pre-conceived opinion about someone that affects your perception of what that person actually says. (This is not good for open-mindedness.)

1. BD did not define Multiculturalism. He did NOT present a circular argument as you claimed.

2. People are entitled to regard MC as being offensive or otherwise. No need to take offence just because BD is the one who mentioned it.

3. To suggest that under MC, each and every culture is just "one of many" is correct. It is plain straight forward argument. No 'legal trick' that I can see.

4. BD did not say CITIZENSHIP is the opposite of MC. Further, BD did not suggest CITIZENSHIP and MC are mutually exclusive. (But even if two entities are mutually exclusive does not make them opposites).

5. BD emphasised CITIZENSHIP, like many people would. No need to take offence just because BD is the one who mentioned it.

BOAZ_David

With fans like GZ Tan, who needs opponents? GZ Tan tells us that you did not define Multiculturalism. Like all good debators, you have of course - and often (and badly). And if you didn't, how can we make sense of what you say on the topic?

GZ Tan says you are entitled to regard MC as being offensive or otherwise - even you who does not define it! In what sense can someone be entitled to regard MC as offensive if they don't define what it is?

By denying that you present a circular argument, GZ Tan draws further unwanted attention to that circular argument (Multiculturalism is horrible in my opinion; therefore I think Multiculturalism sucks).

GZ Tan says you don't use legal tricks, thus drawing attention to your use of a cute rhetorical trick of conflating explaining and apologising.

GZ Tan draws further attention to your false dichotomy of citizenship with multiculturalism ("Multi-Culture-alism OUT..and 'CITIZENSHIP' IN) when he/she denies the dichotomy exists in your post.

GZ Tan thinks my pre-conceived opinion of you affects my perception of your ideas and that I take offence at your ideas only because of who you are (in my pre-conceived opinion). Obviously GZ Tan must think I take offence at all the other writers to OLO whose ideas on Multiculturalism I oppose.

With supporters like CZ Tan you may as well pack your bags, as you say David, and go to antarctica. I'm sure you're robust enough to speak for yourself.

FrankGol,

I am not supporting BD as such. It could have been someone else.

1. Aqvarivs provided a 'definition' for MC earlier: "Multiculturalism is a philosophy that is sometimes construed as ideology advocating that modern society should at least embrace and include distinct cultural groups with equal cultural and political status. (Wikipedia)". I have not read a definition coming from BD. So you wrong'ed BD with that circular argument claim.

2. Aqvarivs's definition clearly suggests under MC, each and every culture is just "one of many" ie. with equal status.

3. "Multiculturalism OUT CITIZENSHIP IN" from BD is completely different from: "CITIZENSHIP can only be IN if/when MC is OUT". BD did not claim they are opposite/mutually exclusive.

4. Not at all, I do not think you take offence at anyone/everyone who disagree with you on MC. I simply think people have a tendency to misread someone once a preconceived opinion is formed.

I am sure BD is robust enough to speak for himself. I am just a busy body.

Now it seems to me it's alright for you to pick on someone but don't take it kindly from a 3rd person, judging from the way you rant.

Frank, we can make this very simple.

You claim I 'define' MC in a certain way. Let me repeat it again.. my quarrel is with the TERM itself. You can do many (but not all) the things the 'actual' concept currently involves, as long as it is not called 'multi' culturalism. I can handle 'assimilation assistance', 'Integration assistance' any term which recognizes that there is in fact.... an "Australian" culture and identity which welcomed newcomers.

This is why the word 'citizenship' is so fundamentally important.

I honestly don't see your problem.

I have 2 main prongs of my argument.

1/ Focus on 'citizenship'
2/ Focus on assisting newcomers to be good well informed citizens.(i.e.Australians)

Our culture is dynamic, and will continually adjust and change, no biggy, but don't put barriers up to blended gradual change by emphasizing difference. Instead, facilitate and encourage unity at the cultural level.

Why do we have to even mention 'multi' cultural ? What does it achieve ?
I can tell you ONE result is surely achieves.. it offends, insults and denigrates all those who claim 'Australian culture' as theirs.

Is it such a bad outcome to kindly guide newcomers into our midst as new members of 'us' ? Why do you persist in fencing them in as 'them' ? (by defending 'multi' culturalism)

It the reality is as benign as you claim.. then the change of name to 'citizenship' should not worry you in the slightest.

Currently a lot of funding goes to organizations which support cultural 'DIFFerence'.. I want to see funding goto the same organizations but with the criteria of allocation being INTEGRATION/ASSIMILATION and growing close to us.

Are you by any chance a recipient of "MC" funding ? It would explain your rather curious defense.
GZ..thanx :) I'm robust but a word of support for the ideas (not me personally) is always welcome mate. 'Thanx Cobber' :)

David, you want to replace the word ‘Multiculturalism’ with the word ‘Citizenship’. This suggests that, having defined both, you dislike the first and prefer the second. You ‘honestly don’t see my problem’. Let me assure you it’s not semantic.

My problem now is that both your concepts are too narrow. For example, you say you “can handle 'assimilation assistance', 'Integration assistance' any term which recognizes that there is in fact.... an ‘Australian’ culture and identity which welcomed newcomers.” Even limiting your argument to ‘Citizenship’, your focus is fixated on THEM, the newcomers, and you miss the importance of helping US come to terms with cultural diversity. (The THEM/US dichotomy is your construct, and not mine - but let’s keep things simple for argument’s sake.)

I don’t emphasise difference - rather diversity. What we have in common is far more important than what makes us different. I agree that unity is important and some concept of Citizenship might engender unity - which is not the same as uniformity (a vastly different concept).

If you and sufficient others find that the term “‘Multiculturalism’ offends, insults and denigrates all those who claim 'Australian culture' as theirs” (whatever that means), then by all means change it. Alternatively, we could ask them to try again to understand that it is not ‘Multiculturalism’ that does that but a distortion of the concept.

But changing the label won’t change the broader concept – policies should help all people living in Australia to understand and respond positively to diverse cultures.

CZ Tan, Aqvarivs's definition of Multiculturalism is not mine nor is it the Australian Government’s. OLO is riddled with people constructing programmatic definitions of ‘Multiculturalism’ only to knock them over. We used to call this game Aunt Sally.

David and CZ Tan, I am not in receipt of public funding, ‘Multicultural’ or any other. Nor do I participate in OLO in order to ‘pick on someone’ nor to ‘rant’. I’ll leave that schooldays stuff to others. I’m interested in complex ideas, elegantly expressed using logical argument and relevant evidence.

Why this irrational obsession with diversity for diversity's sake? Does FrankGol also demand that the Bhutanese government, for example, import cultural diversity for diversity's sake?

In fact, why should the majority culture be obliged to give equal status to alien minority cultures? Why should Australia, a product of Western civilisation, be forced to accommodate every backwards non-Western culture at the expense of its own traditions? Maybe, just maybe, the people who actually built this nation would prefer to preserve their dominant culture.

Diversity is supposed to bring cultural enrichment, but yet its achievements are like tomorrow - there are always still coming. Instead, we have cultural division, ethnic tension and parallel communities. Chinese immigrants do not arrive with a curator's knowledge of Ming ceramics and copies of the Tao-te Ching in their pockets. Rather, they huddle into urban ghettos, excaserbating the ethno-cultural schism between non-assimilating minorities and the rest of Australian society.

Despite his prolix, FrankGol refuses to answer the question as to why Mr. Lo identifies himself as Chinese rather than Australian. Gone are the days when 'Australian' exclusively denoted European ancestry. So why are we still having this debate? Is this not multiculturalism placing allegiance to ethnicity over nationality? Maybe I am holding FrankGol to unreasonably lofty heights - nobody ever said that multiculturalists were intellectually honest.

People who live in a culturally homogeneous society tend to feel a sense of community. They feel a sense of responsibility and protectiveness toward these people. With good leadership and a population sharing common culture, values and traditions, the community is strong. Fragment that homogeneous society and you destroy the sense of community and shared identity. This is applicable on the national level.

It is therefore understandable why ethnic minorities form exclusive communities separate from the rest of Australia. As there is no obligation for them to integrate into the mainstream Australian community, ethnic tribalism is now the norm. Yet, when it comes to the mainstream Australians seeking a stronger community built around common culture, values, history and traditions, the diversity police come out in force.