Many of us have forebears who (with sincere apologies to the aborigines) cleared the land, built the railways, towns and cities, fought the wars, and developed a stable democratic political system. They built the platform which enabled Australia to continue to invite people from all over the world to settle here and help make, in my opinion, Australia a better place.

Can Jien-Yung Lo see why many of us may have some sense of ownership of the role of welcoming host?
I do not think it polite or indeed wise for ethnic groups to attempt to usurp this role. It is a bit like a guest in a household telling the host how he/she wishes to be treated.

Sorry to break it to you, online-east, but Jieh-Yung Lo is every bit as "aussie" as you are. Australia hasn't "lost the dominant aussie culture" - rather, it's changed, and some reactionary "anglos" like you are evidently unhappy about it. So what? It seems to me that it's your problem rather than that of "aussies" who have accepted our changing times.

Goeff: "It is a bit like a guest in a household telling the host how he/she wishes to be treated"

Sorry to break it to you mate, but Jieh-Yung Lo is no more a "guest" in this country than you are. He is not only an Australian citizen, but he was born here.

FrankGol: "A dishonest weasel or a fool?"

I think possibly that he's both, based on the unadulterated drivel he posts here incessantly.

To all Fellow Australians

It is a relief to read some posts that are not filled with racist hatred and distrust.

I'm a 'new Australian' myself, I chose to become an Australian as opposed to a Canadian or an American (yes I had a choice). I get so angry whenever someone with English ancestry born here insinuates that a non-Anglo naturalized immigrant or non-Anglo Australian born person is somehow not 'Aussie', more like a barely tolerated guest, and therefore not entitled to make any comment. Is this an 'Australian Value'? I thought the whole point of a free participatory democracy is that citizens can voice different ideas and opinions.

I would like to point out to you that especially those of us who came from non English backgrounds think very carefully about what it means to live here and value Australian citizenship and embrace Australian values and laws. That's why we publicly declare our allegiance to Australia in a citizenship ceremony. So maybe, the 'most' Aussie are those of us who had a choice to become one and those who happened to be born here from English back ground should keep quiet. We know what alternatives there are and we had to go through often enormous effort to become Australian, you didn't. There was no effort on your part. See, that's deeply offensive and hurtful to you now.

The largest group of long-term Australian residents who refuse to declare their allegiance to Australia are in fact 'compatible' British citizens. Think about that.

Some of us speak other languages, some of us have very different cultural traditions, we cannot deny that or negate that. Even between families of the same cultural group there are different 'family' cultural differences and traditions.

As I said before, the 'Anglos' should be happy that now there are other people for them to hate and fear. Not so long ago they spat amongst each other where the issue was whether you were Protestant or Catholic. It can be tricky to identify those, thank goodness for the Lebanese or Asians, they're much easier to pick.

I find most of this multicultural debate most amusing.

Those arguing against immigration hysterically point at the muslim world and say look! Ahh! They're going to destroy us!

They can say that this is the first time in world history such a united, huge enemy is at our gates, and we ignore the situation at our peril.

Sure. Why not.

But what's amusing is I bet all that was said during the whole 'yellow peril' scare. AaaH! They're an economic powerhouse the likes of which the world has never seen! WhOoO!

Were they right? Technically, sure, why not. But mostly, they were wrong.

It's the same thing throughout history. Over and over. Each time, the focus is on unrest in a certain area - cue Cronulla riots - and point to the doom that is ahead.

Boaz - I've no doubt you'll read this and consider me blind to the danger. I appreciate you at least come from a place of concern for the future, but to me, I see you viewing this situation from a prism of christianity and christianity and the muslim faith represent the two most volatile religions in history. While you mean well, I've no doubt the knights that charged off on the crusades felt they were working for the greater good.

This isn't to say we can't benefit from better assimilation practices without being accused of racism. Sure, english tests, and having immigration officers pop in to ensure people are settling in okay aren't bad ideas.

But the paranoia and hysterics that can be seen on these threads...

Dear Frank, a little while ago, when Bob Brown said Pauline Hanson was a “political bloodsucker” and also that she was making ‘racist comments’ I made an error of quote by combining the 2 statements as follows: “Bob Brown called Pauline Hanson a blood sucking racist”. I was reminded of the error of my ways repeatedly and loudly by my friend CJ Morgan. So, perhaps I should call on him now to correct you :)
I also had the same mind as you that to say a person makes ‘racist’ statements means they are racist. But, CJ. put me straight there.

Ok..mildly sarcastic digs aside, yes I would have to agree the author ‘IS’ a racist, but let me give this its correct weighting. I don’t consider he is consciously making ‘racist’ choices, nor do I feel he lies awake at night plotting his next ‘move’ in his race related crusade. No.. its not like that with most people.

Its more ethnocentrism. Now using your own wider definition of that, the fact that he places ‘ethnic communities’ in the centre “Liasing with the government and wider community” is adequate testimony, and indeed confirms that they are seeing ‘ethnic’ communities as something separate from mainstream and I have a simple question- ‘why’ ?

My grandparents did not come to Australia to remain ‘English’ (mums side) or ‘Scottish’ (Dads side) they came here to be Australians.

How I worked out the ‘implication’ of his article about ‘prevailing culture having little value’ is this,
-the existence of ‘ethnic’ organizations, putting all non mainstream groups together AGAINST the mainstream. Why do I characterize them as ‘against’ ? again, an easyone. -If they were ‘for’, they would not form specific ethnic organisations but see the value in the mainstream and transparently participate. It is as obvious as a small group of people meeting for a barbeque and 2 of them happen to be of the same ethnicity, and they immediately form an exclusive clique...based on race :) This happens even at churches -often.

Yvonne_and_TRTL Next post will reply. (Yvonne..don’t despair_this is debate :)

David

We are making progress but your slipperiness with words is an impediment. You were right first time - to say someone is active in a racist organisation is to say they are racist. Of course, you can be wrong in your first claim - that the organisation is racist.

Your distinction between intended and unintended racism is useful. Intended racism is less amenable to remedy, it seems to me.

Humpty Dumpty told Alice, 'When I use a word...it means just what I choose it to mean...', But “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

I think you are playing word games (intentional or unintentional) when you say that Jieh-Yung Lo places ‘ethnic communities’ in the centre when he liaises with the government and the wider community. The word 'liaison' is a neutral term to describe the establishment and maintenance of contact between entities. It describes a mutually-desired interaction. Despite your wishful thinking, engaging in 'liaison', does NOT confirm that the ECCV "are seeing ‘ethnic’ communities as something separate from mainstream".

Nor does the existence of 'ethnic' organisations put all non-mainstream groups together AGAINST the mainstream. Your analysis is flawed. Quote: "It is as obvious as a small group of people meeting for a barbeque and 2 of them happen to be of the same ethnicity, and they immediately form an exclusive clique...based on race. This happens even at churches -often." So what?

What are we to make of the Australians who famously gather together in Earl's Court in London? Are they being racist? Funny if they are, because last time I looked there were Australians of various heritage backgrounds gathered together drinking Fosters. And let's disband the Scottish band in Doncaster too.

Who do you mix with David? Perhaps you'll concede that there are positive benefits to seeking the company of similar kind? It's not always subversive of the total good.

The trouble with straw men arguments David is that they can come back to haunt you.