The Maori’s first contribution to NZ culture was the genocide of the native people there. I wonder if this part of there culture is still celebrated?

What exactly does Irfan want to do when it comes to having more Aboriginal culture in Australian society? Surly not more Anthony Mundiens?
Sure Aboriginal culture is an important part of Australian history but it is hardly relevant to mainstream society.

I dread the day when the Australian rugby team has to do some silly primitive tribal dance like the Kiwi do to keep minorities happy.

I'm no expert, but isn't Maori culture more unified than that of Australian Aborigines? For example, there are (or were) several hundred different Aboriginal languages, but don't the Maori share a common language?

After all, if Australian Aborigines aren't a monolithic cultural group, I would imagine this makes it more difficult to incorporate representative features of their culture into mainstream Australian society (which isn't monolithic either, of course, I'm just simplifying for the sake of clarity).

Its a bit difficult to make generalisations about a linguistically and culturally diverse group, isn't it Irfan? :-)

Cheers!

Why do people continually refer to Maoris as indigenous to New Zealand? They were migrants like the rest of the population, but they seem to be in denial of their origins. Using that logic, whites of European descent will be indigenous to Australia around 2800 if they haven't been over run by starving invaders from the north.

Irfan - another thoughtful post, and I agree with most of what you say.

A couple of quibbles, though.

The aside about "judeo-christian" influences is a bit snide. Not only does the phrase reflect the huge borrowing of Christian religious, ethical and cultural thought from its Jewish origins, it's also not too far off the mark for modern culture. Jewish people have made a greatly disproportionate contribution to science, arts, politics, philosophy, etc (Marx, Freud, Einstein, Spinoza, Ricardo, Mahler ...).There contributions may have been in the face of anti-Semitism, but they were substantial.

Also, I think you’re definition of “distinctly Australian values” is a bit narrow. Few would argue that ONLY Australians and no-one else value mateship, a “fair go”, egalitarianism, etc. The key issue is that these are perceived as being important and highly valued elements of our culture and national character (if such a thing exists). There’s nothing necessarily wrong with trying to identify and promote such values, unless the implication is indeed that others do not possess these virtues, or as an attempt to enforce conformity to a narrow ideology’s interpretation of who is an authentic Aussie.

I was not going to post here but, by chance, I came across this article from the Institute of Public Affairs. It's titled:

"Islam’s free market heritage"

See:

http://ipa.org.au/files/59-1_Islam+FreeMarket.pdf

I'm really interested to see what you have to say about it Irfan.

For my part, it illustrates what I've often said. Questions like "Is Islam compatible with liberal democracy" are meaningless. The Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism of today are not what they were 100 years ago. Nor are they the same as they will be 100 years from now.

In the end it's not what the texts say but how they're interpreted. For an excellent example of this principle see references to the "Book of Escapes and Ruses" in the article.

The article mentions Ibn Khaldun’s writing. I'm amazed how few Muslims know about this pre-cursor of Adam Smith.

One of the ironies of our stoush, Irfan, is that I think I could do a better job of putting the Muslim case than you. What do you really know about the Muslim scholars of antiquity

"Every peace is based on a war, and that peace contains the seeds of the next war"

The treaty of Waitangi was written in 2 versions. English and Maori.
They differed in ONE crucial word.

That word related to the status of NewZealand Maori sovereignty.

The English version stated they were giving up 'sovereignty', but the Maori version suggested they were simply 'accepting protection of the crown'

Scratch a Maori, and its not long before the reminder of this historic deception brings a knowing smile to their faces.

The White capitalists from Sydney decided New Zealand needed to be populated with many more whites, and they did so in direct contravention of the Treaty. If the Maori decided to link up with some Colonel Gadafi type, we whites would have no one to blame but our own kind.

Kiwi values ? Pretty much like us I'd say. Pity about the history though.

The one 'Kiwi' value which stands out in my mind, was that epitomized by a Maori Chief (female) who, at Gate Par where the British elite were being cut down by superior Maori tactics, was doing the rounds of the wounded and dying Brits inside the Par (Fort) and comforting them, giving them water.. that Maori tribe was Christian in name, and it seems they took part of the sermon on the mount to heart even in the midst of battle.