Has multiculturalism become a dirty word? Yes.

In the 70's, 91% of Australians were against the ideals of multiculturalism. And how comical it is to see people entering this country who have nothing to offer multiculturalism.

The Prime Minister has seen that we don't want to become prisoners in our own country as is already the case in some parts of England and France. Even the Police won't go to some areas. I am glad that we have people from many places making up our nation but I am also pleased that we have people smart enough to know that we need to be selective about immigration. Call that dicrimination or whatever but I don't want no paedophiles in my house.

Multicultualism, in an ideal world, is a noble and fantastic concept. Certainly a far better concept than the ‘White Australia’ policies of the past. However, the ‘do gooders’ and ‘cultural elite’ in this country ruined the concept in the late 60’s and early 70’s.

The waves of immigration from Italy and Greece in particular during the 50’s have proved to be wonderful successes. Similarly, while problematic at first, the Vietnamese refuggees who arrived in the late 70’s, have now integrated into society and contribute. While I don’t wish to single out ethnic groups, it has become extremely obvious that certain communties refuse to even broadly subscribe to Australian values and have no intention of accepting general concepts held valuable within the community (ie not meat pies and footy but women’s rights, religious rights, legal principles etc).

Unfortunately, during the early stages of what is now coined multiculturalism, the ‘cultural elite’, a somewhat patronising and stuffy collection of pseudo intellectuals, bludgeoned us all into accepting that ‘assimilation’ was a dirty word. This was probably because this stuffy little group was (and still is) a self loathing collection of individuals confounded by just how great the simple life of most Australians is.

It is wonderful to eat souvlaki cooked by an Athenian Australian, learn Mandarin from a genuine Chinese Australian, and learn from the extended family support systems of confucian and Italian cultures.
BUT it is not wonderful when immigration encourages a lack of meanigfull interaction and respect-thatis exactly what multiculturalism was not meant to achieve, but has

MultiCulturalism as a means to political domination.

Step 1 "TOLERANCE" of diverse views, particularly religious.

Step 2 While the non 'you' are tolerating you, build your networks and strengthen your people, educating them in the ultimate goal of dominion. Distance your self from those who are too 'blatant' in their zeal, but keep close links undercover with them.

Step 3 To become strong, you engage in many social activities, medical, financial, assisting the poor and disadvantaged, who then give you their unswerving loyalty.

Step 4 When the time is ripe, arm your supporters, claiming they have been victimized long enough. Take over the whole system with a militant rampage.

Step 5 DECLARE your original (back burner/silent) goal of an Islamic State.

And there you have HAMAS in GAZA today. Does anyone seriously think, (particularly Pericles and CJ) that HAMAS will now care two hoots about altering their Charter? which includes the non possibility of negotiation with Israel about its existence?

If I have misread this 'multi cultural' step by step account of contemporary Gaza history, I need to be shown so. If I have misread the goals and strategies of HAMAS ..then demonstrate it.

I speak from what happened, that we all know and can see and verify.
Any disputation of my assessment must be subject to this reality.

Now... PREDICTION.

As sure as I am writing this, and you are reading it. HIZB UT TAHRIR is, in my opinion, an organization in the same mould as HAMAS. The idea that they are not following a similar strategy is ludicrous.
Their charter/constitution signals the death of choice, freedom and any hint of secular life.
WAKE UP... Australia.

Australia's first Prime Minister was Edmund Barton - not John Barton.

Regardless of that blooper, I agree with the sentiments of the article. Monoculturalism, as we've seen in places like France, Serbia and Islamic states is either a disaster or a recipe for authoritarianism (or both). Who wants to live in a place like Malaysia where non-Islamic cultures face severe repression? Perhaps some of the critics of multiculturalism may enjoy it but not me. They should move to a monocultural country if they don't like Australia. Maybe North Korea.

Australia has always been multicultural. Prior to occupation in 1788, local nations spoke hundreds of different languages for a start (not counting the dialects). I wonder if Howard and his ignorant followers know about this?

BOAZ's five steps by which he reckons that immigrant groups in Australia are planning to take over, no doubt keeps him amused.
But he forgets basic realities. While life is probably pretty easy for BOAZ, growing up here or in a similar country, knowing the ropes, how to get a job, how to get by etc, immigrants and refugees from Asia or Middle-East though, are preoccupied 24 hours with just trying to survive.
I have worked with migrant support services - while they are good, they still leave the immigrant with a massive task of just getting to know the new terrain, and spending hours, days or weeks on small administrative tasks that take the local Aussie no time at all. They are in a strange environment, dealing the likes of BOAZ constantly - that is people who are uncaring or suspicious - and simply surviving can be a full time job.
I doubt very much whether the vast majority of migrants and refugees have enough time left over after trying to maintain food and shelter, to be bothered with even thinking about implementing BOAZ's five step plan to dominate Australia.

Is the issue really multiculturalism, assimilation or integration? Or is it the culture of self-hate and self-apology for our Australian culture that is pervading our educational institutions, media and government bodies and seeping out into mainstream.

Can we really expect new immigrants to jump on board our Aussie culture, when it is being continually denigrated by people who have too much power and publicity and influence on public policy.

Howard recognises this and is determined to claw back respectability for being an Aussie.

You can have different cultures with their various foods,dress and beliefs,but we all must be competent in the English language,have a common core set of values and obey the rule of law.

Too often multiculturalism has implied that immigrants can be an island and just take from the society that affords them such wealth without being respectful of the history that has made us such a prosperous and free society.It is the left which has perverted the word and we need to find another term to reflect this diversity,yet express unity.

Well how can you say that people can have different "beliefs" but still obey by the same set of "core" values? Where do you draw the line between an accepted belief and something that is apparently core to being Australian?

For that matter, what do you believe to be "core" Australian values? We are always talking about being Aussie, but in practical terms, what values does that entail?

It is interesting that both of these authors work in the immigration (or more specifically refugee) industry. Self serving, sheltered in safe well paid jobs and loathing of the bulk of the Australian population. These authors are likely to be sheltered from the side effects of high immigration such as the higher cost of living. And these types of snobbish parasites have a lot of power in our society. How sad.

"So where does that lead us - integration or segregation?"

I've had a gutful of this. So put me down for segregation. Eugenia and Vanessa et al, you keep pushing this line of resistance, and segregation is exactly what I will vote and campaign for.

Although separation would be a better option than segregation (which implies you are still in Australia).

All this talk is useless, demography is destiny. It's like Arnold Schwarzenegger telling millions of Californian hispanics to "turn awf Sparnish tellivisharn so you can learn English". Or like complaining that Mohammed will be the most popular boys name in Britain in 2007. It all means diddly squat when, as Melanie Phillips says: "if there is no longer an overarching culture, there is nothing into which minorities can integrate". And so we are at that point - the head is talking, but the body is growing in another direction.

So let's turn off immigration and "invite" everyone left in Australia to assimilate or leave. Lest the head be eaten by the body.

It is heartening to see American is waking up from their open-border insanity and openly calling for a halt to immigration:

http://abandonskip.blogspot.com/2007/05/immigration-usa.html

Judging from the posts from those who clamor for assimilation and doing away with multiculturalism there wouldn't be many who have immigrated to this country from a different culture.

If you were you would know that just to manage in the first few years doesn't leave much time for 'taking over' anything. By the time you are on your feet, emotionally and psychologically, you like what Australia has to offer thank you very much.

Australia is not France or Britain or any European country. Australia is a country made up largely from immigrants. Therefore Australia has a culture that is evolving and developing faster than in countries with a centuries set culture. That is what makes Australia so dynamic.

There is no such thing as a 'culture' that is unchanging anywhere in the world anyway. Australia is lucky in that it is much more flexible than most nations.

It is an inherent self-doubt and 'chip' on the shoulder from multiple generation Australians that they think that newcomers want to make fundamental changes. Newcomers came here for a better life, not more of the same from their 'old' country.

I've said it before. When I first arrived here, I was told: 'In Rome do as the Romans do; in Australia you do not talk about religion, politics and sex.' We are now, that is changing culture. Change does not mean it has to be for the worse.

Dronkey we can have different beliefs philosophically,but have a core,common set of set of values which have achieved this cohesive strong society.These are not indisputable.They are common sense.Unfortunately common sense these days is becoming very uncommon.

We need the anvil of survival to hone our sense of true values.Affluence often brings decadence.That is why we are in decay.

Arjay, I do not disagree that a society should have common public values, but I think these are better guided by civil laws rather than by governmental policies activily and prominently pushing for a form of culture control.

And you have still not answered my question - what values are Australian values?

Australian values as I’ve learned them:

• You are judged and have to earn respect on your own merit. Your parents/family, your class, your religion, your education, where you come from can be interesting, but should not put you ahead in society.

• We are not obsequious to authority figures. Authority will be
questioned.

• Easy-going and welcoming. Uncomfortable with overt nationalistic expression (of all national varieties)

• Generally law-abiding, but not rigidly so. Finding expression in the larrikin streak-‘as long as it doesn’t hurt someone’.

• Work hard, then enjoy your well earned break. Aussies like their days off. They can party hard.

• Belief in fairness to ‘battlers’ or others who fall on hard times.

• Your home is your castle. High personal homeownership used to set Australians apart from others in Western countries.

• It’s OK for some people to earn more, but not too much more.

• If you are very successful in some way, be humble about it. If not we’ll cut you down to size. Big noting yourself is not Australian.

• Politics and politicians are things to be taken with a big grain of salt. Necessary for the running of things, but nothing to get too heated up about.

How am I going for a ‘new’ Australian?

Australian values are very simple concept – Put Australia first. So when you do this you put everything else second such as your foreign loyalties and your religious dogma’s
When you put Australia first you begin to understand all the values that made this country the greatest country on earth.

But due to human nature people find this next to impossible especially when they move to a country not for the love of it but so they can make a couple of extra bucks!

So “real” Australians have listen to empty rhetoric and lies about how much Australia means to these people when as matter of fact that if something better came along they would leave Australia faster they you can say “mateship”.

To answer the authors' question. Yes MC has become a dirty word and not before time. It has taken the polys 35 years to find that MC was divisive in the community and the sooner the term is no longer used the better. MC is a failed attempt of social engineering, an idealogy that may, perhaps, suit an ideal world in the realm of dreamers.

Even the term multiculturalism is a misnomer as I have yet to meet a genuine multiculturalist. Some claim to be, but none would be willing to have all cultures here uninhibited. Have a look at some aspects of some cultures to see what is acceptable in our society.

In the death throes of MC there will be more articles like this one, written by those connected to the MC industry. They seek to blame Government or call those opposed to MC as racist, which is stupid but standard argument for supporters of MC.

Some ethnic groups have done much to bring about the demise of MC. A glaring example is the Lebanese Muslims (known as Lebs). Their arrogance, disdain for our society and social conduct is well known. Lebs not only show contempt for us, but seemingly all other ethnic groups. They get along with no others and want all things to suit them at all times, without compromise. The 60 or so gang rapes were Leb actions, showing their contempt for females, as was the harrasment of beachgoers, for years, that lead to the Cronulla "riot". That is one group to blame for showing the shortcomings of MC. Friction and fighting between other groups, such as the Croats and Serbs did not help the MC cause. By and large, Australians have been very tolerant and welcoming to immigrants.

There are some MC supporters that will try to get political gains from this by blaming the government, but the opporsition is also committed to dump MC. So irrespective of who wins the next election, we will see the continued demise of MC, in favour of integration, and the community will benefit greatly.

Hmmmm much work to do already...

IRONER..

I'm not sure how your brain was working when you extrapolated from my specific mention of HIZB UT TAHRIR, a known terrorist group (in some countries) to.. "migrants are a pack of no gooders" (no, you didn't say that, but it is implied in your words in regard to projecting them onto my post.

I SPECIFICALLY labelled ONE group and singled them out as deserving of the utmost scorn and rejection by mainstream Australia, for very sound reasons. I don't think I mentioned the word 'immigrant' once?
Re-checkit.. bingo.. thats right, I didn't mention any broad attack on migrants generally. I'm married to a recent one in fact.

My wifes culture could not be more different to Aussie culture. There are probably around 10 people in Australia who speak her language.

YVONNE.. you said:

"There is no such thing as a 'culture' that is unchanging anywhere in the world anyway"

EX-...ACTLY. But the more important question is.. 'who' is changing it and 'why' and 'how'?

Nothing happens by chance. Things happen because people are pulling levers of policy. Policy levers are determined by a number of factors not least being influence by lobby groups.

So, change in itself is not bad, but change which alienates huge masses of Aussies DOES matter! Whether you recognize that happening or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that it IS happening and people are feeling it.

ONE NATION, ONE RACE, ONE CULTURE :) i.e. when we drop our racist views of others, we will blend with them in a unity and assimilation and cultural merging that will astound the world.

DavidJS said:

"Australia's first Prime Minister was Edmund Barton - not John Barton."

LOL yes I think the Melbournian authors of this article perhaps confused Edmund Barton with 'John Batman', the gentlemen who founded Melbourne by scamming the local aborigines (the Wurundjeri people) using the old 'you give us your land and we'll give you interesting shiny objects' trick.

Multiculturalism is a one-way street. It means "we respect you" but "you don't have to respect us". Multiculturalism is hypocrisy taken to new levels. This is true of many groups and cultures, but it is especially true of Islam.

First of all let me make clear that the massive immigration of Muslims to the West is a new phenomena that has only occurred in the last generation. Before that it was Europeans, Asians or even Africans (against their will). Prior to the 1960s when immigrants came from Muslim countries, it was mostly Christians escaping the evils and discrimination they suffered under Islam and Sharia.

Understand also that the rules have changed - 100 years ago a family would move and they had to integrate. Now with multiculturalism, welfare and technology, this is different. A group can live, work, worship and even hate, and live side by side with another group. When people praise past immigration (as in the US or Australia) they are talking about a world that no longer exists. It is like the generals planning for the last war. Things have changed, but the politicians and intellectuals don't know it.

Welfare now makes immigrants independent of work and responsibility. Multiculturalism discourages integration and political correctness makes them and their culture immune from criticism. Modern technology means they can live in the West like they never left home (and even eat their favorite Pakistani dishes or watch their favorite Imam in Old Arabia on TV telling them to hate the infidels).

It is a whole new world. The effects of globalism, new communication technology and mass migrations are so many and so deep that they are beyond any individual's understanding. This is a dangerous mixture one day and it will explode. Watch what is going to happen in Europe - it will not be pretty. Boom.

Kactuz

Multiculturalism should mean an ability to communicate with one another - unfortunately it is all too often taken to mean that isolating people is acceptable.
It also means that some groups get assistance and not others. If you are Greek or Italian, Hungarian or Vietnamese you will get assistance to run a cultural event. When those of Scots descent ask for the same assistance they are told "No, you don't qualify". If you want to run an "Australian" event again, no you don't qualify.
A member of my immediate family married into the Greek Cypriot community and they have proved friendly and supportive but they will still speak Greek to one another when people who speak no Greek are present (despite the fact that they can just as easily use English now that the grandparents are no longer alive). We all tried to learn some Greek to be polite to the grandparents but the gesture is simply not reciprocrated and, unfortunately, learning modern Greek is just one of the many languages we would need to learn to use whereas they need English to live in Australia - or should need. There are people who do not see any need to learn English. They can shop in places where they are not required to use English and rely on relatives or friends for a visit to the doctor etc.
Yes, unfortunately multiculturalism is a dirty word when these sort of things occur. Sad when you consider how much it could have to offer.

"Multiculture" is the latest failed experiment by the left that together with their dreadfully failed experiments with the Aboriginal situation, has set our country back at least three decades.
How could people be so fooled by such stupidity for so long?These so called academics have all of history at their fingertips but have totally missed the gist of it.
Our so called 'obscure Australian values ' were what made this wonderful country so good in such a short period of time. From convict beginnings to a leading nation, it is our intrinsic values that have proved their worth.
Anyone who cannot see those values proven every day of their lives should not be taking up space in this beautiful land.

Thank you Katcuz (sorry if I can't recall the spelling of your name properly). You have added two new thoughts.
(1) That welfare provisions can retard integration into a new culture. When I came to Oz 50 odd years ago there was economic pressure on me to get into the swing of things pretty quick smart. Perhaps some of that impetus is lost these days. I am not sure of the fix because it would be inhumane to deny welfare.
(2) Advances in communication mean that people can indeed cling to their old societies of support, and this can retard integration.

I sometimes wonder whether receiving individual immigrants rather than complete families is something that so continues to link an immigrant with their society of origin that it impedes integration.

It is implicit in all this that I am very much pro integration. I mean by this that the newcomer assimilates to some extent with the host culture, and that to some extent the host culture accommodates to the new ideas of the newcomer.

davo, i have a couple of questions for you:

1. "refugee industry"....? how is working with and helping refugees being involved in an industry? the vast majority of lawyers, social workers etc who work with refugees do so as volunteers.

2. how exacly has immigration increased the cost of living in Australia? For such a long time, the Australia economy has ridden off the back of work performed and businesses created by migrants.

Parisito,
An answer for you :
My father & mother-in-law have never worked a day in Australia, yet a few short years after arriving they obtained public housing, discount travel on public transport, a pension & medical benefits.
Where do you think the money for that lot came from ?

( Incidentally, they also maintain a 3 bedroom unit overseas -and a foreign pension which is deposited & stays in their overseas bank a/c

Has 'multiculturalism' become a dirty word? Yes, among people of limited intelligence and lots of transferred self-loathing. To them it means something dirty, and they won't give up until they have convinced themselves that's it's a pinko/leftist/ABC/Fairfax/union/Muslim/feminist/gay/green/chardonnay swilling/latte sipping/humanities lecturers'/Marxist/state school teachers'/ Howard-Haters' conspiracy.

They fear and despise 'multiculturalism' but have no mind to understand what it is they fear and despise. Their minds are locked in neutral. They hate 'multiculturalism' so much that they worry about catching the mc virus. It's an evil so dangerous that even to read about it might lead to eternal damnation.

We could substitute the simple words 'cultural democracy'. But I doubt that would help the feeble minded. They will accept nothing less than white British 'Christian' supremacism as the dominant ideology in Howard's paradise.

Yes, of course I now expect the hate mail to come flooding in from the self-appointed, self-righteous cultural warriors. I can hear their brains rattling even now.

Anyone who disagrees with Frankgol henceforth has limited intelligence.This Frank,is discrimination on the basis of your perceived weakness in others.Adolph Hitler had a similar view only his parameters of inferiority were based on race and religion.

We all discriminate and the multiculturalists have been very active in effecting their own form of illogical bias.The left have used multiculturalism for their own power plays,and thus have perverted basically honerable concept.MC is dead because of dishonesty and PC nonsense.

Yvonne,
You have done very well with your list of what I would call 'aspects of Australian culture'. Far better than I could. Our society revolves around our endeavours to be fair, courteous and giving consideration to the other person. Little things like saying please and thank you, moving aside for someone approaching, not queue jumping and letting another vehicle into a line of traffic, etc. all help to make our society liveable.

To Dronkey. Our values are not uniquely Australian, they do not have to be, but it is the combination and the emphasis that we put on certain things that set us apart from other nationalities.

MC seperated people into groups, putting their culture before that of Australia. Foreign culture was deemed more important than ours. Indeed, we were told we did not have a culture and we had to be tolerant of others even when they were not tolerant of our way of life. The fact that MC was imposed on us got the backs up for many people. MC went far beyond simnply helping newcomers settle in.

If MC was only about children in colourfull costumes, dragon parades, art and foods, beer festivals and other enjoyable events, it would be good. But many cultures carry baggage by way of often alien practices and attitudes. The host country has a right to set community standards.

As I said before MC was a social engineering experiment that has failed. You are right to say all cultures are changing continuously, but the community has to gradually decide which changes to accept and which to reject. Government imposed social changes seldom are popular.

Wow Frank, only one critique so far. Looks like your stalking-horse will have to be unsaddled and put back in the stall.

i'm not sure oz needs immigrants. importing people seems to mean that oz society is so dysfunctional that it can't reproduce itself.

and we might have too many people already, from an environmental view.

oz cuisine has benefited greatly, but sending cooks overseas on study tours would get the same effect.

so who needs multiculturism?

If mc means equal opportunity for all...with more than enough of whats wanted/needed to go around...then I dont think this issue will be raising its head...

Problems arise when there is not enough to go around, or unbalanced self interested groups just want more than they need, when picking off the weaker and vulnerable becomes the first targets...

So what is driving this...

mc works...all ethnics, and this word includes anglo-saxons, can walk our streets without a feeling of rejection from any quarter...why act to change this good thing...when we judge each other on the higher level of the person we are ie our personality and character (gaita in romulus my father gives a good explanation from page 101 to these words)

And when one sits back and thinks about it... a mc society that works well together is more capable of dealing with society stresses that may arise than a society at war with itself...

The white Australia policy worked for a while because english anglo-saxon held the balance of world power for that period...and so took the cream of spoils as any conquering group can/did in history...nothing wrong with that. Now, the world has become a smaller place and population dramatically exploded and no ethnic group hold such superior power over all others...so mc is the only way forward...afterall what we call mc is actually a cultural diversity that developed over thousands of years of society...lets celebrate that...while we all keep our eye on keeping Australia sustainably balanced now, particularly ensuring our children grow with a healthy psychological responses(a lot harder than one realizes) and a healthy future takes care of itself...

Sam

Sam...

we don't need any policy other than 'equality' for people to have equal opportunity. We don't need to mention anything about 'culture' or 'multi' culture.

As soon as we mention 'culture' along with 'multi' we are basically admitting that Australia had no culture of its own, or..that if it did, its just one of many, and all others have the same chance to re-shape it in terms of their own.

That is the result of a 'multi' cultural policy.

Far better, is that policy aims at simply protecting equality of access, employment, services etc. The limit of people not knowing English is only a hint to provide some extra help with language, but NOT culture. More preferable in terms of Australian cultural solidarity and cohesian, is an approach which clearly INFORMS would be migrants that Australian culture is such and such, and it is expected that ALL migrants to this great country will seek to assimilate themselves to it, and support it, and share in it.

If they happen to have a religion which is problematic in terms of assimilation, this should be pointed out, and if neccessary, advice given that Australia may NOT be a desirable destination for such people.

Its all about 'us'. Remember the song ? "What about me, it isn't fair, I've had enough, I want my share" Well.. that's human nature. The sooner we realize this the better, and shape our policy around such a reality.

The true greatness of Aussie culture and attitudes are manifest at a footy game. You DON'T find mobs of supporters out for the blood of the other teams supporters. (Croats/Serbs) Fair Dinkum Aussies can take defeat or victory goodnaturedly.

I think we need to have a system of 'points' demerits. If any offspring of migrants are involved in 'racial/tribal history' related violence, and accumulate sufficient points, some kind of penalty or fine should be imposed. (I'd apply this to Irish/English as well)

FranfGol, one question for you, since you obviously believe you have all the answers. How do we, as white Aussies, reconcile the cultural traditions of indigenous Australians that are in conflict with the UN statement on the rights of children? I'm referring to the issues of arranged marriages and the age of consent that are discussed in the Little Children Are Sacred report circa p76. The report acknowledges confusion in aboriginal thinking on this issue.

Myyyyy goodness Frank :) that was so good it bears repeating (and scrutiny)

"it's a pinko/leftist/ABC/Fairfax/union/Muslim/feminist/gay/green/chardonnay swilling/latte sipping/humanities lecturers'/Marxist/state school teachers'/ Howard-Haters' conspiracy."

could not have put it better myself :) 'my work is done' and Frank did it.

Ok.. joking aside. There is an 'element' of truth in that little diatribe, but clearly it is not across the board. But Frank, there is sufficient truth in that grouping to demand our attention.

Its probably as true as "Right Wing extremist, Howard loving, Bush worshipping, Muslim hating, Christian hyper fundamentalist,Gay bashing/Aboriginal neglecting.....etc" are on the other end of that political/social spectrum.

I think its more accurate to say that there are 'elements' which reflect those extremes in existence. It may also be true to say they control or drive a significant degree of the agenda. They may be the loudest voices.

SOLUTION. We need to remove ourselves from these extreme and entrenched positions, and actually look at the concept of MultiCulturalism:
a)In its documented theory
b)Its practiced application.
c)How it is perceived (rightly or wrongly) and used by vested interests.

Just because a bloke might whack you with his Bible from time to time, does not mean all his views about potential ethic conflict and weakened social cohesian are by default 'wrong'. What matters is:
a)Social Evidence
b)Anthropological evidence of 'how societies function'

Regarding "b" above, the nature and cause of social change is the area of greatest importance. I've referred to the Cape York situation, but there are many others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_change

Opinion leaders/Vested Economic and Religious interests and their manipulation of opinion leaders etc are all important.

Ev,

I find it assuming that you have nothing else to add to the debate other than to pick up on a mistake....

Perhaps the authors simply got John Howard and Edmund Barton confused. That's a very likely story.

Culture is constantly changing. It tends to change slowly in mono-cultural societies and faster in multi-cultural societies like Australia. Australia has become multi-cultural over time.

I am a 54, third generation Australian with Irish ancestry. I've seen huge changes in Australia over the last 40 years. My teenage years in Melbourne in the 60's was with a peer group who had mums and dads who fought in WW2. A few of my friends were sons of German and Italian migrants. They got a verbal beating whenever we discussed the war, but they were our mates and their parents played their part introducing new engineering skills and culture into a somewhat barren cultural landscape.

In the 80's, I worked in an Aboriginal community in Queensland bringing in the transition from patriarchal mission rule to self determination through local government.

Today I live in Blacktown, Western Sydney with residents from over a hundred different national backgrounds. My partner is from Ghana, West Africa and I have neighbours from Lebanon, Samoa, Sudan and China. They're all wonderful people. I see students walking to school and I'm delighted to see how relaxed they are with each other.

Racial tensions do exist. We have neo-nazi supporters and white supremacists. They recently held a public meeting in the heart of Blacktown where they protested about the intake of thousands of African refugees into Blacktown. They raised the specter of a United States scenario evolving here with armed drug gangs of black youth ghettoizing Blacktown.

In fact, the Africans have been model citizens, low crime rates, embracing the opportunities for education, work opportunities, cultural and sporting activities. Their biggest challenge is coping with racist attitudes from prospective employers and harmful views expressed by some state MPs about disease and in our shallow current affairs media about taking ozzie jobs. They set up stereotypes for supremacists to persecute with hate. Sadly some Africans have escaped war only to meet a violent death here at the hands of these racist low life. Our politicians should be taken to task for their actions.

Fair Go, what makes you so sure that the protesters are in fact 'neo nazis' and 'white supremacists'? Is it possible that they are not, and simply hold a different position on a particular issue that is different from yourself? Do you have evidence that these people, as you imply, preached white domination and the extermination of everyone else?

It sounds to me like they were raising legitimate fears. Many Africans live in housing commissions in Australian cities. Elsewhere in the world they bring with them poverty. France has dangerous ghettoes full of Africans thanks to unchecked immigration. Why do you think there is a concerted effort to disperse African immgrants around the country? So they can't form poverty stricken ghettoes. This alone is reason not to bring them here.

Back to the pitiful and shameful work of social engineering called multiculturalism. Hundreds of ethnic groups live side by side in parts of Australia thanks to the infrastructure set up by the Anglo Celtic / Saxon population. The anglo culture is the glue that stabilises this country, so why subvert it. The benefits immigrants bring is grossly exagerated to justify more immigration for the benefit of certain interest groups (and not the broader australian population).

Davo, your comments are both cruel and unwarranted.

First, to say that people from war-torn countries around the world should not be accepted into Australia because they might form poverty-stricken ghettos reflects poorly not only on you but on our society. You are obviously an intolerant and cold-hearted individual who is too concerned with your own material and economic well-being to extend your heart to people suffering real humanitarian tragedies. I think you should be ashamed of yourself and your and small-minded opinions.

As for fair go's statements about white supremacists have you stopped to ponder if perhaps fair go is calling them "supremacists" because that is the ideology they openly espouse? I know it's hard to believe that such people are out there, but it was equally hard for me to read your extreme opinion about Africans...ill-informed, racist and cruel opinions are everywhere, as you yourself demonstrate.

Davo, your comments are both cruel and unwarranted.

First, to say that people from war-torn countries around the world should not be accepted into Australia because they might form poverty-stricken ghettos reflects poorly not only on you but on our society. You are obviously an intolerant and cold-hearted individual who is too concerned with your own material and economic well-being to extend your heart to people suffering real humanitarian tragedies. I think you should be ashamed of yourself and your small-minded opinions.

As for fair go's statements about white supremacists have you stopped to ponder if perhaps fair go is calling them "supremacists" because that is the ideology they openly espouse? I know it's hard to believe that such people are out there, but it was equally hard for me to read your extreme opinion about Africans...ill-informed, racist and cruel opinions are everywhere, as you yourself demonstrate.

Well said Dronkey!

The extremely racists, almost militant views expressed in this forum are shockingly shameful. No wonder so many people feel isolated whilst living in Australian society.

And to call people who care about the plight of others, as opposed to having dreams simply of expanding their own wallet, "self-loathing" is paradoxical.

Many African people are poor, but why is that a reason to deny them immigration to Australia? Surely one of the "core" Australian values our Prime Minister is trying so dearly to cling onto has something to do with compassion and understanding? Australia after all is a nation of migrants. Why are do we feel so afraid of migrants now? Is this an expression of a latent fear of ourselves?

Australia should be leading the way to the socialists nirvana and be demanding the worlds poor and disenfranchised. Everything that has been created in the last 200 years should be used to support and employ and house the worlds poor here in Australia. Racist white Australians should go live in Africa and see how they like it. Fertile lands as far as the eye can see. Long ocean shores teeming with fish. Forrest after forest to harvest timber. diamond and other mineral wealth. Exotic fruits to seed farms, grapes to grow wines. Miles of grazing land for cattle and sheep. The opportunities for whites is boundless. Those poor Africans they have nothing.

Thanks Banjo. I made that list to show that Australians who were born in another part of the world learn to know and understand intrinsic Australian 'values'. I sometimes think that we might even have more insight into these than those born here. After all, we have to adapt and have come from other cultures to compare.

Multiculturalism helped me and others like me to become a real part of this nation. It acknowledges that I and others like me, though born elsewhere and never able to hide the fact because of things like accent and habits, am still as Aussie as any other Aussie.

Our children too, though born here, because of growing up in a non Anglo Australian household will grow up knowing their parents' culture. Now they don't have to be embarrassed anymore and hide this fact.

It is Australian to judge and respect individuals on their merit. Not on issues like class, education, religion and where they come from. Most Australians would agree with this. But what does does then really mean?

Australia is such a successful multicultural country precisely because of intrinsic Australian values. That's why countries like say France, Germany and Great Britain have problems and struggle with multiculturalism.

Terms like 'Fair go' are bandied around, but what value does that have if really we want everybody to conform and be the same? To conform and obey to some vague authority I regard as un-Australian. I'm afraid if anybody is going to demand a certain Australian code of conduct Australians being what they are will rebel!

As I've remarked before: Multi-cultural does not mean multi-national. Many cultures are identified in name by a nation, but it denotes a culture not the political entity of a nation. Multicultural has nothing to do with multinationality. That is not acceptable.

Debates like this divides Australians again into new-comers and suspect vs Anglo-Celtic Australian. All people who become Australian citizens have to swear allegiance to this nation and its laws after a long drawn out process.

Fair dinkum you blokes, give us a fair go.

Frank,
You said: “I can hear their brains rattling even now”

The noise is not coming from your opponents, its emanating from you. And it’s not being made by the head, but a lower part of your anatomy.Must be your b-b-b-big knees knocking together (definitely couldnt be anything else) Suggest you wear 'comfy' long-johns on these cold winter nights - it would do wonders for your disposition too.

My purposefully strong invective against anti-multiculturalism showed what it’s like when posters throw personal abuse and make absurdly magical claims about ‘isms’ without a shred of argument or evidence.

(e.g. ‘MultiCulturalism as a means to political domination’; ‘multiculturalism has implied that immigrants can be an island and just take from the society’; ‘MC is a failed attempt of social engineering’; (and in the same post) ‘multiculturalism is a misnomer’; ‘Multiculturalism is a one-way street’; ‘Multiculture has set our country back at least three decades’; ‘MC seperated people into groups, putting their culture before that of Australia’; etc etc.)

‘Isms’ like multiculturalism and philosophical labels don’t do anything. It’s people who do things, make decisions, stop things happening,

I’ve now been accused of ‘discrimination’, ‘arrogance’ and ‘dishonesty and PC nonsense’. I’ve been compared with Hitler, challenged to show how ‘white Aussies reconcile the cultural traditions of indigenous Australians that are in conflict with the UN statement on the rights of children’ and told that while there is ‘an element of truth in [my] little diatribe’, there is a noise coming from ‘a lower part of [my] anatomy’. And all over a word!

Only one poster (you get your gold star back David) had the good sense to suggest that ‘We need to remove ourselves from these extreme and entrenched positions, and actually look at the concept of MultiCulturalism’.

So let’s have a moratorium on vacuous sloganeering with terms like ‘multiculturalism’, ‘left’ and ‘right’. Now there’s a radical idea!

Too cute by half FrankGol. Hence my question. Which you chose to lump in with the insults and generalities of others.
I chose this question because it is timely, and relevant to the practical application of multiculturalism. And because I thought your answer might be illuminating.
Your non-answer; and categorization of my question as an example of my self loathing etc, is illuminating in its own way.

So, as someone who accepts the overall workability of 'mc', but feels free to question specific issues the policy raises, and even (god forbid) disagree with some of the specific outcomes; I'd like to know what your answer is.
Do we agree with the cultural tradition of 'marriage' of 13 yo's when it works, and only disagree when the 'bride' regards it with horror?, and the subsequent sex as rape? I know the anti's answer, but what is the pro's viewpoint?

Australian's never wanted this farce upon called, "multiculturalism" and are waking up to making themselves heard against the left wing ideology of his mantra.

What made the rubbish become disliked even more, is the behaviour of immigrants refusing to follow our laws, refusing to intergrate, keeping amongst themselves to the point that it is common for asians to refuse whites service in their shops in areas such as Cabramatta, racial tribalism as they buy up whole suburbs to themselves, etc.

There is one rule for them, one rule for us. One only has to see how Muslims who smashed a man's skull for being white walked out of court with smiles for being let off, yet a white man who simply wore a shirt opposing this mantra, went to prison. Then there's the Leb's driving about carrying illegal lethal weapons yet police were not allowed to charge them but a young white man dragging a tree branch, not using it as a weapon, was sentenced for carrying a lethal weapon.

Not that the Islamics help themselves when they say that they should be able to marry and have sex with 9 year old girls, ignore Australian law, call for Jihads and more while in Australia.

The only whites who are racists, are the whites who hate other whites.

Spider, you seem to have a lot of pent-up aggression which is not backed up by any facts. If you step back and look at yourself with a grain of salt, you will see that you sound extremely racist and hateful of other cultures living in Australia.

I have the following questions for you:

a). What specific facts do you have to support claims that people from other cultures keep to themselves and do not integrate. Do you have statistics, research, etc or just your skewed perceptions to guide you? Please give me concrete EVIDENCE.

b). How do you explain away the fact that Australia is essentially a migrant country. Migrants contribute immensely (and arguably more than Ango-Australians) to our scientific and cultural growth as a nation, and to our skilled workforce. Do you have any EVIDENCE that migrants have been ecomonically detrimental to Australia?

c). Where does your dislike of migrants come from? On what specifically, other than apparent misinformation and a lot of prejudice, is it based?

I look forward to hearing your reasoned and FACT-BASED response (please do not include racial hatred spout).

Regards,

Dronkey.

Yvonne,
You said,"Multiculturalism helped me and others like me become a real part of this nation"

Can you explain how you were helped?

I recall having many 'New Australian' friends during my school days and had workmates, friends and aquaintences of many nationalities, including aboriginals, as I grew older This was well before the introduction of MC and we all got along in the usual way.

After MC came into being(1970s) there were no 'New Australians' but people of different nationalities. It was certainly implied that these people did not have to become Australian, but should retain their own nationality. This lead to the seperation into ethnic groups and the divisivness that I mentioned earlier. Even the term 'New Australian' seems a lot more warm and inclusive than 'ethnic'.

I would like to know how MC helped you as distinct from the integration we had before. Multiculturalism in no way emphasized Australian nationalism.

The Liberals jumped on the multicultural bandwagon for the simple reason that it allowed them as a political policy to segregate society into cultural identities and then use those identities to crowbar socialism into culturally conservative communities. If you look at how the voting system is laid out you can see how having a large block of opposing political view can inhibit any party from winning that strategic area.
Especially areas of high population density that are keystones for political success. But if you can break down every community into racial and cultural particulars then as a politician you can enter these communities and speak to them about issues of colour and religion and culture and then BS them into adopting your socialism in the name of cultural empowerment and gain. Cultural marxism has infested all democratic societies. And the media wants you to lay back and take the guilt trip of having a once successful society.
Once you start really looking into it you can see the worm holes and social decay. Welcome to the Police State. It is now necessary to police 150 cultures rather than 1 nation.

Multiculturalism is more than a dirty word; it's a vile, pernicious ideology. It's more than merely ethnic tribalism with lip gloss. It's an all-out assault on Australian culture and national identity. The intellectually deficient and historically ignorant apostles of multiculturalism are essentially trying to abolish Australian nationhood, denying Australia's founding majority the right to preserve their own predominant culture and way of life.

Australia has always been multi-ethnic, but was largely culturally homogeneous up until our politicians and self-proclaimed intellectual elites began ramming the poison pill of multiculturalism down the throats of the Australian public. Four decades later and our nation is more divided than ever.

A nation that was once defined as a community sharing a common culture, history and identity has degenerating into a mere cohabitating space for the world's tribes. What can be said for a nation that celebrates the displacement of its own culture, values and traditions as a milestone of social progress?

For myself, I like Ireland because it is Irish, or Japan because it is Japanese. Yet, Australia is no longer inhabited by Australians, just a hodgepodge of disparate ethnic and cultural groups. Many Australians, especially those from Anglo-Celtic backgrounds, now feel like strangers in the country their forefathers founded and built.

Australians are incessantly told told that they have no worthwhile culture of their own, and they must accept multiculturalism as it is simply "racist" for them to oppose the alteration of their nation's cultural makeup. They are told they have no choice but to accept "diversity", which, in reality, is nothing more than the marginalization of Australia's Western culture by the assertive, ethnocentric cultures of those now arriving en masse.

The authors of this trite article seem to believe that shared national identity is somehow authoritarian. I would counter by arguing that multiculturalism makes a sham of democracy as it denies the majority any democratic control over the fundamental right to decide who should belong to the their society.

Multiculturalism is more than a dirty word; it's a vile, pernicious ideology. It's more than merely ethnic tribalism with lip gloss. It's an all-out assault on Australian culture and national identity. The intellectually deficient and historically ignorant apostles of multiculturalism are essentially trying to abolish Australian nationhood, denying Australia's founding majority the right to preserve their own predominant culture and way of life.

Australia has always been multi-ethnic, but was largely culturally homogeneous up until our politicians and self-proclaimed intellectual elites began ramming the poison pill of multiculturalism down the throats of the Australian people. Four decades later and our nation is more divided than ever.

A nation that was once defined as a community sharing a common culture, history and identity has degenerating into a mere cohabitating space for the world's tribes. What can be said for a nation that celebrates the displacement of its own culture, values and traditions as a milestone of social progress?

For myself, I like Ireland because it is Irish, or Japan because it is Japanese. Yet, Australia is no longer inhabited by Australians, just a hodgepodge of disparate ethnic and cultural groups. Many Australians, especially those from Anglo-Celtic backgrounds, now feel like strangers in the country their forefathers founded and built.

Australians are incessantly told told that they have no worthwhile culture of their own, and they must accept multiculturalism as it is simply "racist" for them to oppose the alteration of their nation's cultural makeup. They are told they have no choice but to accept "diversity", which, in reality, is nothing more than the marginalization of Australia's Western culture by the assertive, ethnocentric cultures of those now arriving en masse.

The authors of this trite article seem to believe that shared national identity is somehow authoritarian. I would counter by arguing that multiculturalism makes a sham of democracy as it denies the majority any democratic control over the fundamental right to decide who should belong to their society.

Dear Frank...thanx for the gold star back :)

You seem to have a fairly entrenched position though.. desiring to continue using the word 'Multi'-culturalism. Honestly, I think we would do much better by not using that term and implementing a program of education which focuses on in short "Doing for others as we would have them do for us".. that would solve it all.

Why use a term which alienates many if not the majority of Aussies?

Unfortunately, people being what they are, some will seek to take advantage of kindness, so there also needs to be vigilance about that, and measures taken to prevent abuse.

But really, the bottom line is to love others.. respect them, and they to respect us. For me this means our own culture will not be eroded by those seeking to re-shape the community in terms of their own history or parochial political agenda, such as expressed by

[THE nation's most senior Shia Muslim cleric has attacked John Howard for backing Israel against Arabs and openly declared his allegiance to the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.
Kamal Mousselmani -- head of the Supreme Islamic Shia Council of Australia -- said yesterday his entire community considered Hezbollah a "resistance group", not a terrorist network, and lashed the Howard Government over its support for Israel.]

I'd deport that bloke within 24 hours, no if's but's or maybes. *OUT*

Even though you may not agree with my harshness here.. in terms of "doing for others" etc.. I cannot imagine myself standing up in Tehran and glorifying 'The Great Satan' and being allowed to get away with it..can you? So.. it's no harsher (and probably a lot LESS harsh) than I would expect if in Iran, where I'd probably be killed.

Oligarch

Your hostility towards multiculturalism is matched by your ignorance of it. Your rage is directed at immigration policy not the cultural policy that deals with the demography produced by immigration.

You say that “multiculturalism makes a sham of democracy as it denies the majority any democratic control over the fundamental right to decide who should belong to their society”. How can that be so? The decision on who becomes an Australian citizen is made by the Australian Government. Remember John Howard’s speech on that matter: “We decide who comes to this country and the circumstances by which they come”?

Last time I looked the Australian government was overwhelmingly Anglo-Australian in composition. So it’s Anglo-Australians who are deciding who should become Australians.

Given the political reality, to say that multiculturalism is “an all-out assault on Australian culture and national identity” and that ‘apostles of multiculturalism’ are “trying to abolish Australian nationhood, denying Australia's founding majority the right to preserve their own predominant culture and way of life” is a perverse nonsense.

How can “politicians and self-proclaimed intellectual elites [ram] the poison pill of multiculturalism down the throats of the Australian people”? If the majority of Australians don’t like the ‘poison pill’ being rammed down their throats they are perfectly able to throw out the government. That’s democracy.

And since the majority of Australian voters are Anglo-Australians what are you implying? That the majority of Australians (still Anglo in origin) are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote? Are you really saying that only people like you with the right ideology on racial superiority should be allowed to vote?

Banjo, thank you for wanting to listen to my story.

It is understood and shared by Australians like myself who have a different heritage to yours. It is simply about belonging equally as citizens to this nation we chose to make our home and to which we swore our allegiance. To which we belong as much as you.

Before multiculturalism there was no policy of integration, but assimilation. Assimilation is pretty well impossible for anybody who comes here as an adult or an older child.

Assimilation means becoming like you. I cannot. To succeed I’d need total amnesia, loose all family and past friends, get speech therapy and for some of us have drastic plastic surgery. Basically, erase all personal history.

It may seem like a little thing to many of you, but to many of us to be assumed to be Australian is the difference of inclusiveness to otherness. Now my cultural difference is acceptable, I am no longer ‘another’, ‘them’. I’m part of ‘Us’. MC aided this process.

MC is not about breaking Australian laws. Australian law is the law. For everybody, even visitors. Ask Sylvester Stallone.

It is quite immaterial whether some ‘cultural’ aspects are practiced elsewhere or not. Some of the cultural practices that are most often paraded as proof of the evilness of MC are illegal in countries of origin. The citizens, and visitors, in every nation are judged and tried according to the laws of that nation. Australian tourists have discovered this in SE Asia, visitors here.

MC is not about segregation. On the contrary. By the sheer notion of acceptance and respect of cultural difference amongst Australians comes the notion of inclusiveness.

MC articulates a reality. Australia, by its very nature, has always been a multicultural nation. The last census supports this.

Boazy: " cannot imagine myself standing up in Tehran and glorifying 'The Great Satan' and being allowed to get away with it..can you? "

Hell, Boazy - you've fantasized in this forum numerous times about doing just that in Melbourne, but you haven't seemed to be quite able to actually do it.

I reckon you'd get a similar reaction in Tehran to what you'd get in Melbourne - i.e. as some kind of religous loony who isn't worth bothering with. But that's why you've never actually done it, isn't it?

FrankGol, is it possible for you to engage in a rational debate about multiculturalism without throwing around irrelevant and thinly-veiled accusations of racism? Your debating tactics, like your ideology, are anachronistic and intellectually mendacious. It's almost like a throwback to words such as ‘heretic’ in the 16th century - words that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobes’ stifle rational debate.

As far as I can see, there is nothing racist or xenophobic about a nation seeking to preserve its own culture and national identity, as opposed to being overwhelmed by a large deluge of disparate and even culturally antagonistic migrants. Contrary to the oft-repeated mantra, Australia does have its own culture, traditions and history. Is self-preservation racism? What makes its noble for non-Western peoples to defend their culture, but racist for Australians to defend theirs? Or is Australian culture somehow less legitimate simply because Australia was founded by Europeans and not their myriad poor brothers and sisters from the Third World?

As for the immigration and multiculturalism, the two issues are intrinsically linked. Immigration is the oxygen that feeds the fires of multiculturalism. In previous times, Federal immigration policy was formulated in a way that took into account our nation's cultural absorptive capacity. But then along came the doctrine of multiculturalism, and suddenly such considerations were no longer considered relevant. Multiculturalism has allowed governments to adopt a laissez-faire approach to immigration in order to meet the rapacious demands of big business, irrespective of the social and cultural consequences.

Both major political parties support high immigration and both support, to varying degrees, a policy of multiculturalism, or at least, the celebration of "diversity". Mr. Howard, for example, may talk tough on immigration, but in reality, his government has opened the floodgates to the highest continuous rates of immigration the country has ever seen. With both parties adopting almost identical market-driven positions on such issues, what democratic choice does the Australian public actually have?

Yvonne

At the risk of sounding churlish, perhaps you should ease off worshiping at the altar of the migrant for a while. If migrants are unprepared to detach themselves from their cultural homelands, then perhaps it is best they remain in their homelands.

Like Canada, Australia is a relatively "successful" multicultural nation only because it has a historically weak national identity. According to the multiculturalist interpretation of Australian history, this country was nothing more than a racist, Anglophilic, stagnant cultural wasteland until the holy doctrine of multiculturalism liberated us from the tyranny of homogeneity.

More assertive, well-defined nations would not have tolerated such a divisive trojan horse like multiculturalism to fester within their midst.

You claim: "Assimilation is pretty well impossible for anybody who comes here as an adult or an older child."

My father and grandparents emigrated to Australia from Central Europe back in the 1960s and managed to assimilate. And you know what? They became better, more participatory Australian citizens for it. They came here for a new life in a new country, not to recreate the old country in order to keeping living their old lives.

"Australia, by its very nature, has always been a multicultural nation. The last census supports this."

Australia was no more "multicultural" than Finland or China prior to the introduction of multiculturalism as an official policy.

Furthermore, the "we've always been multicultural" fallacy mirrors the "nation of immigrants" mantra. It's a circular argument. Because we are a nation of immigrants, we have to allow for massive immigration which, in turn, makes us a nation of immigrants. Hence a logical fallacy. Hardly a rational argument for either multiculturalism or mass immigration.

Australia's immigration-driven "multicultural" demographic transformation is the result of public policy, not a natural phenomenon.

"Many cultures are identified in name by a nation, but it denotes a culture not the political entity of a nation."

A nation is more than just a geographical entity. It is a sovereign structure that is the political expression of a specific ethnic or cultural group. That is why, historically, multicultural states are an aberration.

Oh Apostle of MC.. Yvonne :)

mate.. you said: "and to which we swore our allegiance"

Then, you go on with explaining how migrants cannot assimilate as adults.

ALLIEGANCE.
Firstly.. yes "Alliegance" what do you make that Sheikh who basically draws a dividing line between 'Shia Muslims' in Australia and the rest of us, who condemn Hezbollah. Our government policy is the condemnation of Hezbollah as 'terrorists' (I prefer the term 'enemy' myself) yet this moron is yelling how he and his kind love them.
"We love them..print that"! he said.

I would LOVE to have the chance to discuss that position with that Sheikh in person.

ASSIMILATION- its a matter of degree. As a Greek born migrant told me at a picnic ground "I am not yet Aussie, but my children will be much more" and so on.. He sang the praises of Australia as the most tolerant country in the world. I myself found it possible to assimilate to Asian culture within 8 yrs or so, not 100% but heading in the right direction.

So, we don't expect migrants to suddenly slap on a slouch hat and sing Waltzing Matilda in a broad aussie accent, but we DO expect them to head in that direction, rather than falling into the aspect of culture shock which has negative results such as:
1/ Rejection of the new Culture.
2/ Glorifying of the old Culture.
3/ Limiting ones social contact to those of their own ethnicity/religiosity.

Government policy should be aimed at and focused on facilitating the assimilation we all need to reduce social conflict and friction.
Terms like 'Multi' culturalism do not help that process. "Citizenship" certainly does.

Oligarch and Boazy,

I'm a migrant, but probably one of a later generation than Boazy's 'Greek' and certainly later than Oligarch’s family. Therefore not nearly as polite about accepting unreasonable expectations or comments from fellow citizens.

Unlike those lucky enough to be born here, I and the vast majority of migrants, made a conscious decision about becoming Australian. Absolutely and categorically NO WAY would I accept that I’m not ‘quite’ Aussie. NO WAY would I accept that somehow I cannot participate vigorously in this democracy. I am fully Australian, funny accent and all. I will not let you marginalize me, because you can pick me.

How very sad for a Greek migrant to say 'I'm not yet Aussie, but my children will be.' That line alone underscores what I said in my last post. He is not 'Aussie' yet precisely because of my point about assimilation and he obviously has been made aware of his lack of ‘unaustralianess’ on many an occasion. You wouldn’t let him forget either would you Boazy?

A new citizen swears allegiance to the Nation and to her laws. Not to becoming a clone of Boazy or to becoming ‘not yet an Aussie, but my children will be’. What pitiful crap. How dare you demand loyalty from a ‘not yet Aussie’?

On the issue of culture and the ‘newness’ of Australian culture. The ONLY people who keep on and on and on about this are actually Australian born Aussies. A culture is more than a combination of old buildings, similar faces and habits. It irks me boundlessly how some seem to think that Aussie culture and identity are so new and so fragile that it must be protected and guarded. It survived some of you lot who are pretty lacking on some quintessential Aussie values and will continue to do so.

You are the ones who do not believe that Aussie culture and values are real enough or robust enough. Not immigrants.

And no, none of you can tell me ‘to go back home’. This is my home

Yeah, “multiculturalism” is as much dirty word as “sink” itself: it does not matter how it sounds, it’s a matter how it is used to.

Yvonne,
Thanks for your reply to my question and I do appreciate the lack of name calling that usually comes from pro MC advocates.

However you did not give anything specific. You say that cultural differences are now acceptable and MC aided this. Cultural differences have always been acceptable, otherwise we would not allow any migrants. What is not acceptable is Government promotion of foreign cultures and nationalities to our detriment. We are expected to adjust to other cultures, not the other way around.

We have never been MC. We are multi racial with people of many nationalities. India is MC, where they have different laws for different cultures. Since 1788 we have been Monocultural which stemed from British colonization. Our laws, customs and social structure, etc. all came from Britian. Certainly we have evolved since then to more suit our climate and with the influence of large numbers of migrants from other countries. But we are still basicly monocultural.

The grand ideology of MC was to be a federation of different cultures and nationalities, with 'Unity in Diversity'. This is the biggest furphy ever as many ethnic groups do not respect cultures of other groups, let alone respect our culture. They compete with each other for a slice of the government pie, to promote their own culture.

Some ethnic groups are actively hostile to others. Take the Serbs and Croats and the Greeks and Turks. The soccer people had to introduce wholesale club name changes to try to stop violence. The Leb Muslims are contemptous of us and all other ethnic groups. So much for 'unity' and the promotion of foreign cultures. Some still have hatefull attitudes of the original culture after two or more generations.

All Aussie citizens have always had equality, irrespective of whether they were born here or became citizens. MC had nothing to do with that.

Apart from some culinary aspects and arts and crafts, there has been little advantage of MC and the cost has been enomous, both monetary and socially.

I enjoy jocks, Banjo: “Cultural differences have always been acceptable, otherwise we would not allow any migrants”.

Need in slaves rules.

"I enjoy jocks, Banjo."

OLO's very own Borat strikes again.

Ten propositions about multiculturalism.

1. Multiculturalism and immigration are two different things; it is either intellectually sloppy or dishonest to elide and confuse them.

2. Multiculturalism is not a doctrine that simply ‘came along’ nor was it invented by people of ill-will; it is a product of democratically-elected governments of both persuasions responding to community debate about cohesion amid diversity.

3. Multiculturalism is not inflexibly fixed; it is a policy which democratically-elected governments can and do change from time to time.

4. ‘Australian culture’ and ‘national identity’ are not eternal products to be pickled and preserved, nor are they ‘under threat’; they are social constructs which intelligent Australians constantly negotiate, add to and progressively refine.

5. Multiculturalism does not threaten 'mainstream culture' which, by definition, is dominant anyway.

6. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ do not stifle rational debate; but the actualities of racism and xenophobia are dangerous.

7. Despite hysterical claims to the contrary, multiculturalism does not give approval to practices that are against the law; multiculturalism endorses the rule of law; if the law is broken the transgressor should be dealt with.

8. Mischievous or ignorant language like ‘multiculturalism is a means to political domination’, ‘the fires of multiculturalism’, ‘opening the floodgates’, etc is meaningless hyperbole.

9. Multiculturalism is not a law, not a power, not some magical weaponry; multiculturalism is an idea; and ideas can be debated, clarified and refined. Ideas do not harm people; only malevolent people harm people.

10. Multiculturalism is an important element of a democratic ethnically-diverse society; its objective is to encourage interaction rather than separatism, to be inclusive rather than exclusive, to promote participation not isolation.

Now no insults, no slander, no nutters. Just debate my ideas on their merits.

You can not have a nation built around competing cultures, races and religions, vying for recognition and social empowerment, and then use words like unifying and inclusive. Or be out among the various societies, thanks to multiculturalism, and not observe the social divide and local exclusionary practices. The political and social encouragement of ghettos, enclaves, cities sectioned by culture, race and or religion, and the victim mentality of social redress behind these descriptors. The battle for victim recognition and cultural development. Multiculturalism is not a unifying concept. It pits cultures, races and religions against each other for recognition and social power. It's a mad ricochet of me me me as 'who is the victim' is passed back and forth like a reward and a standard of achievement.

As I'd already mentioned, “multiculturalism” is de-facto a modern English word for umbrella covering traditional xenophobia and racism of dominating majority. It has not much in common with religious issues but just a shy attempt to alter, in case of Australia, Anglo-ego in accordance to worldwide mentoring on inter-tribes relations, proclaimed by this country .

Can one change imaginable by a decree? Saudi king had decade ago issued fatwa that the Earth rests on elephants -or on what-so-ever Koran mentions – and a planet is still orbiting Sun.

Let some better enjoy correcting my messages rather than attempting to change this orbit or global warming realities – playing English is much realistic job for them than self-esteem in own global possibilities if even exersising at a level of this UK-semi-colony.

Bit late Frank, About 35 years. Where was your rational argument when the response, to anyone who could see problems with MC, was that they were 'racist and xenophobic'? Amazing, its over, MC is history and now you come up with rational argument.

1. MC and immigration are two different things. Governments have grouped them together and we were told MC would help migrants settle in.

2. and 9. MC is law. It was imported from Canada by Grassby and we were told it was to be. He thought the ideology great and it was implimented by Whitlam and Frasser to get the 'ethnic vote'

3. MC is inflexable. There was no allowable alternative.

4.Australin culture is not fixed but MC was social engineering to change dramically our culture.

5. MC does threaten mainstream culture. Each time we accomodate another aspect of some foreign culture, we compromise our own culture. Ours is unique in the world, we cannot go to some foreign country and reserect it. Those promoting MC deliberately belittled our culture.

6. Words like 'racist and xenophobic' were used by pro MC advocates to stiffle argument and put anti MC advocates on the defencive.

7. Mc implies that Immigrants can carry on their lives exactly as they did in the 'old country'. Things like cock fighting,dog fighting, eating dog meat and FGM can be done as the Government turns a blind eye. But, you know, best to keep quiet about these things. Occasionally, there is an annual bust on cock fighting.

8. There has been reams of meaningless hyberhole about the benefits of MC.

10. In practice, MC divided people into various ethnic groups, each competing for some of the generous funds governments made available to promote the various ethnic programmes. There was little interaction, except on a hostile level, and even some ethnic groups did not qualify for grants.

Whatever good intentions Grassby and others may have had in relation to MC, it did not work out that way in practise.

35 years is long enough trial and it will be good to see MC finally buried.

In response to FrankGol,

"Multiculturalism is not a doctrine that simply ‘came along’ nor was it invented by people of ill-will; it is a product of democratically-elected governments of both persuasions responding to community debate about cohesion amid diversity."

Nor was communism invented by people of ill-will. Yet both communism and multiculturalism are failed utopian ideologies with a simplistic and overly optimistic view of human nature. Like "New Soviet Man" prior to the USSR fragmenting along ethno-national lines, advocates of "Multicultural Man" subscribe to the utopian fallacy that cultural, ethnic, and linguistic differences are irrelevant. "New Soviet Man" was somewhat less contradictory than "Multicultural Man" though, as according to the multiculturalists, we're supposed to "celebrate" our differences at the same time as it is "racist" and taboo to recognize that any insuperable differences between groups of people exist at all.

Moving on, the introduction of multiculturalism as an official policy here in Australia was hardly democratic. Opinion polls at the time showed that some 90 per cent of Australians were opposed to its introduction. Studies by academics, such as Katharine Betts and Mark Lopez, on how multiculturalism came to be adopted as public policy in Australia reveal that official multiculturalism was pushed by a small group of self-appointed intellectual elites, people who "could and did meet in one room." The public was never consulted, let alone convinced.

FrankGol: "‘Australian culture’ and ‘national identity’ are not eternal products to be pickled and preserved, nor are they ‘under threat’; they are social constructs which intelligent Australians constantly negotiate, add to and progressively refine."

Culture and national identity are forged by a common national memory of events, history and traditions. Yet, multiculturalism has denied the existence of a common Australian culture and national identity. Moreover, it has disassociated Australia from its Western civilizational heritage. It has become a pernicious exercise in social engineering, divesting Australians of their "shameful" European inheritance by promoting redemptive infusions from disparate non-Western cultures.

Like Banjo, I fail to see how top-down social engineering can be considered "progressive" refinement.

FrankGol: "Multiculturalism does not threaten 'mainstream culture' which, by definition, is dominant anyway."

Somehow, you don't seem to look ahead to the time when those identifying with the Western culture and traditions that most of us would call Australian are merely another group within a disjointed ethno-cultural hodgepodge. If the current multiculturalism-high immigration paradigm continues, there is a real possibility that Australia will be left without an ethno-cultural majority. Only an authoritarian state could survive such a massive, Balkanizing demographic transformation of that magnitude.

FrankGol: "Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ do not stifle rational debate; but the actualities of racism and xenophobia are dangerous."

Kindly drop the tired old sanctimonious routine. The mere expression of opposition to multiculturalism in my first post was enough for you to scurrilously imply that I harboured racial supremacist attitudes. Celebrate diversity at all cost, just not diversity of opinion, right Frank?

Speaking of real, not imagined, instances of racism and xenophobia, why aren't you clamoring to condemn racism among some of our migrant communities? Try walking through some of the ethnic ghettos in Australia’s capital cities; the mistrust and animosity displayed by many of our multicultural masses toward the rest of Australia is palpable. Do you consider this to be racism or simply ethnocentrism? More importantly, do you consider ethnocentrism, the norm among non-Westerners, to be itself a manifestation of racism?

Aqvarivs: “Multiculturalism…pits cultures, races and religions against each other for recognition and social power.” There it is again - that magic reified multiculturalism. I repeat: It’s people, not words, that create and enact competition for power. Moreover, culture, race and religion are minor characters in the struggle for power in Australia compared with economic interests.

Banjo: I promote multiculturalism and have never belittled ‘our’ culture. What’s the evidence that multiculturalism has ‘compromised’, ‘belittled’ or ‘dramatically changed’ ‘our’ culture?

If cock fighting, dog fighting, eating dog meat and FGM are done with tacit Government approval, then the Government should be challenged or changed. These practices are illegal whether the policy is multiculturalism or not. If barbarisms occur in our democracy, we don't abolish democracy.

Oligarch: An irrelevant false analogies between communism and multiculturalism. Communism is a total system of government whereas multiculturalism is a social policy set in a democracy.

I won’t debate straw men like: “multiculturalism has denied the existence of a common Australian culture and national identity.” To claim that multiculturalism “has disassociated Australia from its Western civilizational heritage” is just verbal play-acting. School curricula look pretty much the same today as when I went to school decades ago. TV, radio and newspapers are pretty much unchanged (except for their American influences).

You are presenting a highly selective view of Australian history, contemporary life and future. To assert that “Only an authoritarian state could survive such a massive, Balkanizing demographic transformation of that magnitude” is scaremongering.

I can celebrate diversity, but I would never do it “at all costs”. I strenuously oppose illegal acts allegedly done under the spurious claim that multiculturalism allows them.

As for racism I do clamour to condemn it wherever it occurs. And I regularly walk through Footscray and Richmond without feeling mistrust or animosity. I treat people as decent humans no matter what their ethnic heritage. Your experience has been sadly different, it seems.

As for diversity of opinion, I happen to think some opinions are more rational and better argued than others

FrankGol, it is people and words. Especially when those people are spouting words bound up in social political policy. Competing cultures, competing ethnicity, competing religions as whole cards for culture and or race in terms of social recognition, empowerment, and government monies perpetuates a divisive social construct not a egalitarian social construct. A egalitarian model would have all cultures, ethnicities, races, and religions under one nation with no culture, ethnicity, race or religion given any notice as per social policy. Being comprised of diverse cultures is of no issue. Making culture an issue of social policy is of issue for it has proven an ill conceived political and social construct. Some of us are able to see the distinctions between having a country made up of many different cultures and a political social policy that directs that society by cultural reference.

FrankGol,
I won't debate the MC issue any further as the matter is over, kuput, finished, dead. Both major political have finally woken up to the fact that MC is divisive and they both have dumped it in favour of integration. I just hope that some of the money that used to go to MC is used to promote a closer community.

As I said before, what ever good intentions the instigators had, it did not work out in practice. Hey, I realize that it was not the likes of me that brought about the demise of MC, but the actions of various ethnic groups themselves.

I have no doubt that you will get over it and come to realize that we are better off. I certainly look forward to the future with a far more cohesive society.

Banjo: You won't debate the MC issue any further because, you say, "Both major political have finally woken up to the fact that MC is divisive and they both have dumped it in favour of integration."

Well, we all know that Howard has always been ambivalent about multiculturalism, but the ALP?

Here's Tony Bourke, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration & Citizenship, in a Speech to the Fabian Society, December 2006 (http://www.alp.org.au/media/1206/spe220.php)

On integration: “What John Howard’s done in recent months is take a word that was always part of our lexicon and tried to redefine it as a synonym for assimilation. I’ve no intention of conceding that term. I think it is fundamental for us that we do not allow the original vision of the multicultural society to be redrawn as though it was about people living in cocoons. …the Government … have been talking about integration as though integration and multiculturalism are mutually exclusive. This is wrong.”

And Lawrie Ferguson in a speech to the Fabian Society, March 2007 (http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/l_ferguson_victorian_fabian_society1.pdf)

“I have had the opportunity to meet ministers, parliamentary committee members and public servants engaged in these issues in at least fifteen European nations over my time at Parliament. Rather than seeing Australia as a failure they consistently seek to emulate us, to learn from us. Their own inability and historical unwillingness to construct proper settlement assistance and the growth of huge urban reservoirs of deprived, excluded people are evident. Germany awoke a few years ago to find it had sunk in European wide educational test comparisons, exactly because of the substandard educational services provided to its inner city Turkish and Kurdish enclaves.

“It is not as though multiculturalism and its delivery of services is unnecessary. There are crying needs.

“A total pre-occupation with integration rather than seeing it as the outcome of a sustained multicultural society is a recipe for those cocooned from these daily experiences."

Doesn't sound like the funeral is over yet, Banjo.

FrankGol said: "To assert that "Only an authoritarian state could survive such a massive, Balkanizing demographic transformation of that magnitude" is scaremongering."

Few nations have ever held together without a cultural or ethnic majority. The regimes which did succeed were widely despised authoritarian governments, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Yet, most multiculturalists fail to comprehend this, as they are either ignorant of history, or presumptuous enough to believe that it simply doesn't matter.

Banjo said: "MC does threaten mainstream culture. Each time we accomodate another aspect of some foreign culture, we compromise our own culture. Ours is unique in the world, we cannot go to some foreign country and reserect it. Those promoting MC deliberately belittled our culture."

The multiculturalists defend what is happening by using the guilt card: they tell Australians that their European forefathers colonised Australia and displaced the Aboriginal population, so what is wrong with large, ethnocentric migrant groups doing the same to us? In other words, they tell Australians that in order to make up for past guilt, Australians must meekly accept this resurrected colonialism. Those who oppose are racist bigots standing in the way of social progress.

"Well, we all know that Howard has always been ambivalent about multiculturalism, but the ALP?"

The ALP's obstinate support for multiculturalism simply demonstrates that it still hasn't got the message. Why was Paul Keating's "Big Picture" agenda so overwhelming rejected back in 1996? Why did so much of One Nation's support base derive from disgruntled ex-Labor voters? Why has Mr. Howard been able to court the "Aussie battlers" for over a decade? Maybe it's because the ALP's "progressive" agenda is not supported by the majority of Australians.

The ALP should return to its working class origins and take seriously the values and desires of the vast majority of Australians. Leave the liberal "progressive" agenda to political fringe dwellers like the Democrats.

FrankGol,
Would not expect you to believe me. You will be the last to be convinced of the failure of MC. Get an update on what Kevin Rudd has said. Both Howard and Rudd have spoken about droping the name, but that is just to appease the diehards of both parties. Wait and see after the election.

Oligarch offers a ‘history’ lesson for those ‘multiculturalists’ who, he says, are ‘ignorant of history’.

History according to Oligarch: “Few nations have ever held together without a cultural or ethnic majority. The regimes which did succeed were widely despised authoritarian governments, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire.”

Awkward facts:
1. The Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867-1918) was not a multicultural society but a dual-monarchy, multi-national empire that fell apart not because of a ‘despised authoritarian government’ but because it was shattered by the Allies in World War 1.
2. The Empire could hardly be said to have succeeded because it was constantly wracked by disputes among the eleven principal national groups.
3. The failed Empire can hardly be compared with multicultural Australia – it had two distinct parliaments each with a prime minister plus a monarch who thought he had absolute power but who was caught up in a maze of overlapping, competing and inefficient ruling groups.
4. Unlike Australia with its dominant use of English in parliaments, education, media and other forms of public life, the Empire endorsed all the existing languages as equal and there were constant disputes in public institutions. It was chaotic.

So much for nineteenth-century history.

Now to contemporary Australia. According to Oligarch, multiculturalists “tell Australians that their European forefathers colonised Australia and displaced the Aboriginal population, so what is wrong with large, ethnocentric migrant groups doing the same to us?”

Funny thing, but as someone who has supported multiculturalism for decades, I’ve never heard anyone advocating that. Perhaps I live in another part of the Empire.

Now I wonder - which of my Australian friends of Greek, or Italian, or Vietnamese or Arabic origin will colonise Australia first?

As for the ALP and multiculturalism, who am I to believe? Oligarch, who says that the ALP are obstinate in their support for multiculturalism? Or Banjo, who, finger tapping knowing nose, tells us all will be revealed after the election? Or the ALP spokesmen, whose speeches are on the ALP website?

Excuse me, Spider, considering your “Australian's never wanted this farce upon called, "multiculturalism" and are waking up to making themselves heard against the left wing ideology of his mantra” is wondering at all this for instance Scottish, Wallis, Irish, English, Anglican and Catholic traditions flourishing around. Which AUSTRALIANs -in such context ?

Dronkey, dominant majority of migrants contributes to this country passively with their very presence creating work places for “Work Future” and similar enterprises well existing on the government’s handovers, employing the mates allowed being employed on paid positions in Australia.

This is a pool of out-of-a-shadow–of-even–Howard’s-IR cheap laborers depressing an income of already residing locals and increasing benefits of fat cats eating out government subsidies-money borrowed overseas in different forms already, either on corporate or personal income levels.

Yvonne, you were already explained somewhere on these pages that you are “an appendix to Australians”.

Aqvarivs, the liberals jumped nowhere-they simply transformed traditional for Britons segregation and apartheid in accordance with then political world reality.

“Australia is no longer inhabited by Australians” – guten tog, Oligarch. Australia has never ever been inhabited by Australians because there was never ever such a tribe on a globe but some attempt to colonize post-US-1776 southern hemisphere with white rubbish of England.

Boaz_David, sharing your attitude to pro-islamists must say, that an Aussie you want to deport bad not because he is Arab/Muslim, but because he is a religious bigot - anti-Semite. Starting deportation, how many should be allowed staying in this country then?

FrankGol, correct me, if I was mistaken, but your idea is a cattle might be used to boil water or to brew a beer-no stuff to blame -blame a staff!

Come, come now Frank. You were going for the ALP no matter the reality. For you it isn't a matter of application but, rather political ideology.
Better you can tell the Seikh's, the Indians, the Pakistani, the Chinese, the Thai, the Iranians, the Lebanese, and every other race religion or nationality that your political party will not only license their particular community but, will finance it, in return for votes. Rule at any cost. The real heart of multiculturalism can be seen in the lives of the Aboriginal communities. Too bad their votes weren't as valuable as say the Chinese or the Indian vote.

Aqvarivs: I know facts are at a discount in your world; but despite your allegation, I am not a member of the ALP. I have voted for another party in the last several elections.

In any event, what relevance does my voting – or yours - have to this debate? It's the ideas that matter, not who you barrack for.

Now, isn’t it time for you to get a coherent line on multiculturalism?

Last week, you had the Liberals down as the villains. Quote: “The Liberals jumped on the multicultural bandwagon for the simple reason that it allowed them as a political policy to segregate society into cultural identities and then use those identities to crowbar socialism into culturally conservative communities.” Socialism? The Liberals?

Today it’s the ALP. You’re telling us that the ALP will supply finance to “the Seikh's [sic], the Indians, the Pakistani, the Chinese, the Thai, the Iranians, the Lebanese, and every other race religion or nationality” in exchange for votes.

And in between, you said that: “Multiculturalism…pits cultures, races and religions against each other for recognition and social power.”

It would be an inept political party that would pit ethnic group against ethnic group (including the Anglo-Australians). They’d more likely lose votes than win them.

So, Aqvarivs, please go away and have a think. What is it that you really dislike about multiculturalism - as evidenced in practice as distinct from multiculturalism as an imagined conspiracy?

MichaelK, nice poetry. I’ll go away and have a think about it. And elephants orbiting the sun. Wonderful imagery!

FrankGol said: "The Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867-1918) was not a multicultural society but a dual-monarchy, multi-national empire..."

This is intellectual dishonesty. According to FrankGol, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was multi-ethnic, multi-lingual but not multi-cultural. Frank, are you actually implying that the Germans, Slavs, Magyars etc. all shared a common culture?

It seems to me that you're using semantics to obfuscate. Whatever your intent, my point still stands that ethnically divided states only hold together through authoritarian rule.

"... that fell apart not because of a ‘despised authoritarian government’ but because it was shattered by the Allies in World War 1."

Once again, you are erecting straw men. I never claimed the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed because of its despised authoritarian government. Rather, I argued that the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Austro-Hungarian Empire only held together as long as it did through authoritarian means. When it did eventually collapse, it did so along ethno-national lines. A mess that dragged in neighbouring states. Does the Bosnian Serb assassination of Franz Ferdinand ring a bell?

"The Empire could hardly be said to have succeeded because it was constantly wracked by disputes among the eleven principal national groups."

Completely in line with my assertion that nations without an ethnic/cultural majority are usually afflicted by internal strife.

Governments and political parties rarely admit that they made a mistake and got it wrong. So we are seeing the following seanario.
Both Andrew Robb and the PM have spoken about the need to change the name of MC in favour of integration.

Kevin Rudd has also agreed with this. Comments by all three would be there on record for those that care to look.

I say wait until after the election as there is a long standing agreement between the major political parties that they will not raise immigration related issues during election campaigns. The original reason for this agreement was that it was an extremely complex issue and the public may not read it correctly. So much for their view of our comprehension or their ability to speak plainly.
More to do with the likelyhood of the polys getting it wrong, I'd say.

I think the demise of MC deserves much fanfare and a piblic holiday to celebrate, but that is not going to happen. What will happen is that the term MC, and tne policy, will be dropped and quietly relaced by integration. This has already started to take place and there is no longer a ministerial portfolio for MC.

The way MC is being phased out is so not to upset some ethnic groups and to appease the diehards in both parties

FrankGol said: "Now I wonder - which of my Australian friends of Greek, or Italian, or Vietnamese or Arabic origin will colonise Australia first?"

Considering the Italian-Australian and Greek-Australian communities are rapidly dwindling (soon to join the nearly extinct German, Polish, Hungarian and Baltic communities), I think it's fair to say that Australia's future is becoming increasingly non-European.

The successive waves of past European immigration to Australia brought together people who were not as disparate as those now arriving en masse. Nor did the post-war European migrants arrive in such large numbers as the migrants currently arriving. Moreover, the post-war arrivals were encouraged to assimilate into the mainstream, whereas today's culturally dissimilar migrants from mainly Asia are actually encouraged to retain their old culture and identity.

What if we reversed the situation in Australia today and took a country like China and implemented a mass immigration program into China from say, African countries until the proportion of Africans in China was similar to that of the "overseas Chinese" in Australia today. Could you imagine the Chinese government doing this, let alone marginalizing their own national culture in favour of multiculturalism? Luckily for them, the Chinese are sensible enough to value solidarity and self-preservation over "diversity".

I don't suppose that Oligarch knows the difference between a nation, state and empire? Hint: they are not synonyms.

It seems to me that Howard has quite cleverly appealed to latent Australian xenophobia by simply rebadging "multiculturalism" as "integration", and reducing funding to ethnic and cross-cultural community groups and programs.

Neither is "integration" synonymous with "assimilation", in that the minority that becomes integrated within the dominant society still retains its distinct identity within the larger group. Pretty much like multiculturalism, when you think about it.

I think the salient semantic games being played here are done so by the Howard dog-whistlers, who can always find an eager pack of attack dogs and dumb puppies to sool on to their latest public enemy - whether this be asylum seekers, Muslim immigrants or Aborigines.

Oligarch

You first said the Austro-Hungarian Empire succeeded. Now, you’re saying that we both agree it failed – but for different reasons. Anyway, leave that to one side.

You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, but you conclude: “…my point still stands that ethnically divided states only hold together through authoritarian rule.”

Your argument seems to be:

1. Multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-cultural nations cannot survive without an ethnic/cultural majority but can survive with authoritarian rule.

2. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-cultural entity without an ethnic/cultural majority and only succeeded through authoritarian rule (or did it fail?).

3. Therefore, Australia will fail if it continues as a multicultural nation (or alternatively succeed only if it establishes authoritarian rule or maintains its ethnic/cultural majority?).

Now, in what sense can contemporary multicultural Australia be described as an ‘ethnically divided state’ like the Austro-Hungarian Empire? In what sense was the Austro-Hungarian Empire a multicultural society in the same sense as Australia is today? What is the Australian equivalent to the two Austro-Hungarian monarchs? Or the Australian equivalent to the Emperor? What’s the Australian equivalent to the Empire’s 11 nation states? Or its unworkable official policy on linguistic equality?

How can the rise and fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire offer any lessons for 21st century multicultural Australia?

The term ‘multicultural’ is a post WW2 invention. It arose in the context of nations – Canada first and then Australia – that were modern democracies facing challenges associated with diversity. No-one I know seriously suggests that English not be our national language. No-one I know seriously suggests that Australia should be politically partitioned along ethnic lines. No-one I know seriously suggests Australia’s ethnic/cultural majority is losing its grip on power in Australia.

Would it be intellectually dishonest to suggest that the likelihood of Australia losing its ethnic/cultural majority is an extremely remote prospect?

Finally, Oligarch tries the scare campaign: “it's fair to say that Australia's future is becoming increasingly non-European.” Facts: Australia’s population: European - 89.3%; Asian - 5.1%; Middle Eastern - 1.2%; South Asian - 1.6%; and Aboriginal - 2.3%. Scary, eh?

Yes Frank, I said you were for the ALP. You brought them into the conversation and highlighted their web links to back up your understanding of multiculturalism. Don't start back-peddling now. As for my line on MC, it goes back to it's introduction in Canada and Liberal Canadian politics and I have followed it as Liberals brought it about in other countries. Countries that did not have any similarity to Canada's political make up of having two distinct founding Nations. The reason for their bringing culture to the political forefront. Quebecers whinging about being neglected because they were francophone, and using that for political leverage.
To day multiculturalism is used by all political parties to procure votes (promises based on race, ethnicity, religion and culture) in communities that wouldn't traditionally vote for them or to encourage them to vote again for that party. Your twisting and misquoting my words don't really help you but hey, I know facts are a discount in your world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1725128.stm
Padam Singh is a development officer for the Ethnic Minority Enterprise Centre in Glasgow. He is Seikh and is the Treasurer at his local Gurdwara (Seikh temple).

Your (sic) was more evidence of you jumping to conclusions.

Once again. If your such an advocate of Multiculturalism please show me how it's helped the Aboriginals. 200 years on and 35 years of MC and the Aboriginals still can't buy decent recognition or a voice in Parliament. I guess that for them being kept on the dole ought to be enough? It's not like they're bringing in millions of foreign dollars and buying property. Nice system your barracking for. No money no voice.

Aqvarivs, You really should pay more attention. The reason I highlighted the ALP speeches on multiculturalism was NOT, as you allege, to back up my understanding of multiculturalism. It was in response to Banjo who had said: “Both major political have finally woken up to the fact that MC is divisive and they both have dumped it in favour of integration.” I was demonstrating that this simply wasn’t true of the ALP.

Looking again at my post on that matter, the point is clear – that I was showing the ALP’s position on multiculturalism was the opposite to what Banjo claimed. So your complaint that I am “twisting and misquoting” your words is a bit hollow (or to use your words ‘intellectually dishonest’?).

I read the perfectly benign BBC article you cited. Thank you for drawing attention to the typo.

Your cheap jibe about multiculturalism and Indigenous Australians – where you say: “I guess that for them being kept on the dole ought to be enough?…No money no voice” - says more about you than about Indigenous Australians or multiculturalism.

The over-riding political system under which we live in this country – you, me and Indigenous people – is democracy, and the over-riding economic system is free enterprise capitalism. Multiculturalism is a mere social policy that is an element within democracy and capitalism.

The serious problems facing Indigenous Australians need to be explained and resolved within that broader context. It is callow and shallow to blame the recalcitrant nature of problems of Indigenous Australians on multiculturalism. Points scoring at the expense of Indigenous Australians is shameful.

ATTABOY FrankGol!

What extraordinary arrogance, that 'we' pass opinions on 'their' culture. This country is an amalgam. Its only original occupants are Aboriginal people, and yes I DO know that that IS arguable. How far back do you want to go?

I still retain much of the culture of the two countries of my birthright,-(one is the UK,- do I pass muster?);-no apologies to you!! But Australia is home.

Greeks/Italians/Chinese/Vietnamese/................and yes...;those people of 'middle-eastern appearance' who have a legal right to be here, AND retain much of THEIR cultures have the same resident status as you. Australia is their home. Australia IS made up of all these cultures. That is what Australia IS.

Who the hell are you to pass opinions on them as if they had lesser rights? Where the hell is the us/them thing coming from?

What in the name of decency gives the White the right to look down on 'them'. Because you ARE doing that.

Get over it. This country IS multicultural, and that is a wonderful plus, NOT a minus.

Great moments in debate:
“No-one I know seriously suggests that English not be our national language. No-one I know seriously suggests that Australia should be politically partitioned along ethnic lines. No-one I know seriously suggests Australia’s ethnic/cultural majority is losing its grip on power in Australia.”

Gosh thanks Frank -we had some real concerns there -but your little spot survey showed they were totally unfounded!

Sorry Frank but in your haste to offer belittlement and more twisting of reality you didn't catch the reference to the article. It was two fold. One, that Seikh was spelled correctly and not your (sic) which as you confess was a mere typo, which we both know was BS, and two, more importantly the mans employment, 'a development officer for the Ethnic Minority Enterprise Centre'. Now, I suggest that only under political and social multiculturalism. Where culture plays odd man out. Will you find any necessity for such an institution as an 'Ethnic Minority Enterprise Centre'. It should matter not in any aspect of a nations social concern whether your of a ethnic minority. Unless of course, if being that ethnic minority gets you something from the other ethnics that make up the majority. And sport, I'm not point scoring for your trivializing of Aboriginal society. I'm pointing out observable facets of Australian practice of multiculturalism. It's a divisive and unfair system giving advantage to those who can afford to manoeuver with in the stated policies of multiculturalism. I really don't mind blind emotional barracking for MCism. I do mind people who blindly advance the rhetoric as gospel with out stopping to view the consequences of such policies at street level.
Ethnic Minority Enterprise Centre indeed!

Well Horus, I’m relieved that you’re relieved that Australia is not about to lose its national language, not about to be politically partitioned along ethnic lines, not about to have its ethnic/cultural majority losing its grip on power.

The conspiracy theorists on OLO have been manic in their fears of the havoc that the wicked ism (the m word) is wreaking in Australia. I thought I should calm things down a little.

However, I see that I have failed to placate aqvarivs. Apparently, Australian (m word) – ‘a divisive and unfair system’ - has given rise not only to the economic and cultural wretchedness of Indigenous Australians but also an 'Ethnic Minority Enterprise Centre' in Scotland. Tomorrow the world!

In the words of our beloved saviour: Be alarmed and alert!

Aye Frank ,but Dinna streetch yer airm farther than yer sleeve'll let ye.

Aqvarius divined well the nature of the beast. We are seeing its works in the recent bombing in London & the recent maraudings of ethnic gangs in Melbourne

There be a price to pay if yer seek to champion its cause.
Put away your bagpipes laddie & meet me in the glen yonder with yer claymore.

"We are seeing its works in the recent bombing in London & the recent maraudings of ethnic gangs in Melbourne.

There be a price to pay if yer seek to champion its cause." (Quote Horus).

I have to concede if this is your first experience of bombings in London, and of marauding 'gangs' ethnic or otherwise; I can well imagine that you are a worried fella, what with the in-laws an' all.

But..........what price did you have in mind?

It's happening! I saw it on TV. A white man in Ethiopia (some thought him a bit yellow). I knew the dreaded m'ism would strike there sooner or later. Now I just know the Inuits in Alaska are in fear and trepidation. Is there no end to the virus of m'ism?

Bombings occur/occurred in, for instance, Argentina, Italy, Spain, Algeria, India, Iraq, even in Yemen a few days ago -and hardly contributed with “multiculturalism” exclusively, as according to some, in London recent attempts.

And ethnic/racial political divisiveness in Australia is not a question of future possibility, but a reality of surrounding since the First Fleet: do, the most obvious example, candidates from parties reflect no ethnic majority of a particular electorate usually?

On the other hand, the Alaskans very differ from other American folks for their “support a stranger” attitude regardless races/ethnicity, reflecting the reality of simply surviving in Alaskan natural surrounding.

Frank
Yer aff yer heid chum -twelve pints is moor den enuff tae get ye pished. Dinna wanna put off our stoush till yer sobber up?

Michaelk
Nice point about the Alaskans ,but :
-What is the ratio of Native Alaskans to non- Alaskans nowa days?
-What is the Linga franca of Alaska nowa days ?
May be a good reason not to emulate them too much -eh??
[Are you on my side or Franks -your recent parry drew the blood of the McGols!]

Ginx
See note re Alaskans, above.

Horus,

Surprisingly, there are many different races and nations in Alaska-and many gasterarbiters, young foreigners there.

Hardly one could say human attitude might be measured as a degree of tolerance bestowed on English-second-language-d due to a mere digitally-quantity considerations.

MichaelK. "candidates from parties reflect no ethnic majority of a particular electorate usually?"

Perhaps 'usually" the ethnic majorities are only concerned with their ethnicity and not the rest of Australia? Not that I blame them, given the amount of attention and money they receive by government for being of a specific ethnicity. It's more profitable to be an ethnic consideration rather than plain old vanilla Australian. Lotta money in that hyphen.

Ginx & Co,
MC is not about variety (i.e. choice of cuisine’s or clothes)or,
about freedoms (i.e. the right to practice religions or , festivals).Its about good old fashion nepotism & careerism under a different guise.

The good, in all cultures & races adapt & get on with their lives.
The bad use MC to exploit their host country ( & the ugly? Well, thats where Frank Gol comes in!).

MC doesn’t necessitate terrorism & anti-social activities from the bad , but MC makes it more likely –and it makes it harder to stop or track down the perpetrators.

Looking specifically at the London bombings, MC provided the following essential ingredients

1)Sub groups –who identified with outsider’s more than they identified with those who they worked with ,schooled with & even married with (even in some cases after generations of citizenship).
2)It provided such groups with a support base – people prepared to lend moral support & safe haven when needed – not due to the moral veracity of their causes but merely because they belonged to the same sub group.
3)It provided them with a apologists –who first retorted ‘they were framed ’ (subtext - the Brits would stoop to anything) but later when it became indefensible, changed it to “they (the victims ) deserved it” (The subtext being, if we cant get you to change your foreign policies at the polls , we have the right to resort to violenc

Aqvarius,

Money paid to ethnic minorities is aka “blood money” is being paid somewhere for murdered relative or for a “first night right”: only very naïve and rejecting the reality initially deny a fact of mere biological approaches in employment and any other opportunities in Australia.

MichaelK., how does Australia measure up to where ever it is your from?
Your constantly slagging Australia but, never tell us about your superior egalitarian homeland. Don't be shy. We are all waiting breath abated.

CJ Morgan said: "I don't suppose that Oligarch knows the difference between a nation, state and empire? Hint: they are not synonyms."

Hint: Don't quibble over semantics unless you actually know what you're talking about.

States are merely political entities with effective dominion over a specific geographic area. Both empires and modern nation-states therefore fit the definition of a state. The difference is that empires were generally multi-national, multi-ethnic states in contrast to the modern homogenized nation-state - a political structure which exists to provide a sovereign territory (the "state") for a specific cultural and/or ethnic community (the "nation") whose identity is intimately associated with that particular territory. Hence the reason why multiculturalism is incompatible with the fundamental tenets of the nation-state.

FrankGol said: "You first said the Austro-Hungarian Empire succeeded. Now, you’re saying that we both agree it failed – but for different reasons. Anyway, leave that to one side."

It succeeded in functioning as a state without an ethno-cultural majority for 50 odd years (much longer if you count its predecessor, the Austrian Empire). However, it only did so through autocratic means. There is no need to confuse the issue.

FrankGol said: "Now, in what sense can contemporary multicultural Australia be described as an ‘ethnically divided state’ like the Austro-Hungarian Empire? In what sense was the Austro-Hungarian Empire a multicultural society in the same sense as Australia is today?"

Sadly, your barrage of questions are predicated on a misrepresentation of my argument. I never claimed that present day Australia was analogous to the Austro-Hungarian Empire prior to its dissolution. Australia still has an ethno-cultural majority, although the current policies of multiculturalism and mass immigration may irrevocably alter the balance in the future. That is my concern.

FrankGol said: "Would it be intellectually dishonest to suggest that the likelihood of Australia losing its ethnic/cultural majority is an extremely remote prospect?"

Since when was demography static? Australia's population is set to grow to 26 million by 2030 and 29 million by 2050. Yet, Australia's total fertility rate is well below replacement levels. All net population growth occuring today is exclusively due to ongoing, historically unprecedented levels of immigration. This means that, while Australia's ageing (dying) European-descended population will continue to shrink in both absolute and relative terms, the immigration population will grow by leaps and bounds in the coming decades.

Peter Costello warned last year: "Theoretically, a nation that does not replace itself can eventually disappear." Pity the mass immigrationist Howard Government is part of the problem.

In fact, not a single Western country has a fertility rate that will enable it to survive in its present form through this century. By 2050, only 10% of the world’s people will be European or of European descent, and it will be the oldest tenth on Earth with a median age of almost 50. Call it a demographic neutron bomb. A dying resident population combined with high immigration means that the cities and towns will still be standing and inhabited, but the civilization that built them will be extinct.

“Peter Costello warned last year: "Theoretically, a nation that does not replace itself can eventually disappear." Pity the mass immigrationist Howard Government is part of the problem” – that is the beginning and the end of a story: increasing an Anglo tribe on expense of the strange-to-the-tribe is rather a silly delusion than a reality of development.

aqvarivs said: "MichaelK., how does Australia measure up to where ever it is your from?"

Care to answer the question, MichaelK? Considering your overt Anglophobia, I presume it's some place far superior to the "Anglo" nations.

Oligarch gave China as an example country preaching unity by not allowing African immigrants. Though, it is probably more a case of few requests of migration to China by Africans than a Chinese policy, but let's leave that aside.

Firstly, China is a more ethnically, linguistically and racially diverse country than Australia. Just because 'they' look 'alike' to you does not mean 'they' are. The written Chinese language is the only way many Chinese can communicate with each other. All the languages are as diverse as Finnish is to French. Only the educated speak Mandarin.

Secondly, comparing a totalitarian nation like China to Australia is weird. Or are you hankering after a totalitarian dictatorship (or oligarchy as your name suggests)?

Just because there are Australians, of any cultural background, who are misinterpreting Multi-culturalism as clearly laid out on our government's website: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/06evolution.htm does not negate its value for a society to live by. It is about respect for each other, not about condoning nationalistic feelings for other nation states. And it certainly does not condone disrespect towards other fellow citizens who have a different cultural back-ground.

The criticism I have about how we deal with multiculturalism here is that we do not stress enough what it stands for. Waving around with other nation state flags is about NATIONALISM, a dangerous thing in my view. A citizen should be able to be comfortable about their heritage, whatever that may be, and be a fierce and loyal patriot.

Incidentally, the Union Jack in the corner of our Australian flag is an early acknowledgment that different peoples can come together as one nation. That is a bit of English, Scottish and Irish heritage for you.

Yvonne,
Do you follow discussion or must manifest own visions? Please, read a message exactly above yours of Saturday, 14 July 2007 8:10:42 PM, by Oligarch, telling us of “Anglo nations”. Which “Australians” do you repeatedly mention of?

Please, let all interested in my answer to Oligarch be assured, that I simply reflect my personal experience in Australia, that is, according to a sure expert of the local environment, ex-PM P. Keating, an “asshole of the world” leading by “a nationalist as Hitler understood it”. However, I bear it in mind that people are what they were/are being told and affected by surrounding.

Moreover, I deeply thankful for Oligarch providing such a stuff as “Anglo nations”, which is to my understanding an explicit expression of confusion by unable to further traditionally oppress an increasing number of not-UK-linked-biologically as a world is tired from feeding up parasites from born-to-rule English elite – no association with the USA, please, as Americans in extending numbers also wonder at reasons they should feed the UK bills round a globe, and in the States surely.

As media informed, Australia is next to a top among countries youngsters loss their virginity at average age of 17 y.o. in.

Is it good or bad?

That is, for instance, a sort of questions to answer while considering “how Australia measures up” to any other place in the world, especially those places, from which professionals are being lured into betrayal of unexacting opportunities in “only for Anglos” entity.

In spite of ethnic or cultural or religious background one always awaits for any citizen who places such appendices to their identity to come out in defense of the nation or national interest. It's a rare event these days thanks to cultural marxism. Marxism loosely defined as a belief that the ultimate interests of workers best match those of humanity in general, having failed around the world, and displaced by a "new" belief that the ultimate interests of a culture best match those of humanity in general. Both ideologies how ever similar reject man as responsible, self-determining individual with a sense of personal worth and social value independent of the masses. Engineering social values through use of emotional multi-herd identity issues. Or multicultural identity issues used to further fragment an already tenuous social structure absent of unifying community values that lead up to a unified nation regardless of races, creeds or colours.

yvonne said: "Oligarch gave China as an example country preaching unity by not allowing African immigrants. Though, it is probably more a case of few requests of migration to China by Africans than a Chinese policy, but let's leave that aside."

It seems you've completely misunderstood my point, so I'll make it clearer for you. If the people of China were asked whether they have a right to oppose mass immigration on such a scale that it would fundamentally transform their nation's cultural and ethnic makeup, the answer would be crystal clear. Yet, uniquely among the 6.5 billion people on the planet, Westerners - the approximately 800 million people in Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand - are expected by the proponents of mass immigration and multiculturalism to abandon any right to define or shape their own society.

The mere thought of Australia reasserting tougher immigration controls in an effort to sustain its own culture is automatically labelled "racist" by the openly discriminatory Asian countries. See the double standard?

As for Chinese immigration policy, the Chinese do not allow immigration into their country by non-Chinese ethnic groups. China only allows for the repatriation of ethnic Chinese (Han and other Chinese ethnic groups).

yvonne said: "Firstly, China is a more ethnically, linguistically and racially diverse country than Australia. Just because 'they' look 'alike' to you does not mean 'they' are. The written Chinese language is the only way many Chinese can communicate with each other. All the languages are as diverse as Finnish is to French. Only the educated speak Mandarin."

China is more diverse than Australia? Tell me, how large are China's European, African, Arab, Indian, Central Asian, South-East Asian and Hispanic populations? How many disparate, non-Chinese immigrants does China accept each year? How many refugees?

As for MichaelK, I'm not too sure what he is incessantly rambling about. Obviously he has never heard of the "Anglosphere" - a term used to denote the British-settled, English-speaking democracies.

It is really sometimes hard to distinct “English” itself from “belonging to England”-“England’s” as well as “Anglo(-)s” from a term “Brits” and in general those of-UK-spread-worldwide liking their modern-colonial masters’ backs for perks bestowed on them from London - their “inherited right” allowing pokies-style robbery of “commoners” wherever the foreign country head of state profile appears on local coins, is the most.

An Anglo-sphere accomplishes countries where English is a state language-that is mostly agreed international definition for this twentieth century lasting abnormality and legacy of English racism of the OPENLY-officially-imperial time a recent ERII reign witnesses decay of, and of no way refers to the precondition an Anglo-Celtic/Saxon populous to be simply in majority in these states – India is the brightest example of.

Arrogance and ignoring not-Anglos as lower sub-servants is as much “Australian” and ENGLISH as the Big Ben is England’s.

I hope this spelling-check-passed text will not be perverted as too frequently happened in order oligarchs participating would be capable to understand it to an extent of not raving accusations in my address while so many of things deliberated were, as understood already, beyond their comprehension regardless of positions their Anglo-London-forbearers had passed them in generations.

I'm still waiting for MichaelK. to tell us all which egalitarian paradise he left in order to come to Australia, the land of the hated Anglo-Saxons and coin of the realm. I can't help thinking he's either a doddering old fool, or someone who can't yet dress himself and go out unaccompanied. I know he said he was absolutely brilliant and recognised world wide for his genius... right up until he landed on the shores of Oz and then in a blink of an eye found himself no longer accepted as the smartest in class. Such an experience must have smashed up the old ego something fierce and seems to have contributed to the mans blatant racist and cultural hatred.

"Anglo-London-forbearers..."

Considering I don't have any English ancestry whatsoever, this comment was rather amusing. Another "jock", MichaelK?

I must say, Michael's incomprehensible anti-Australian rants are really quite entertaining if you don't take them too seriously. They certainly liven up the place.

International recognition, aqvarivs, had been gained to a great extent while wasting a life in “multicultural” fascists-led Australia (see above of Hitler-linked descriptions), where according to Oligarch, a “so many of things deliberated were, as understood already, beyond … comprehension regardless of positions their Anglo-London-forbearers had passed them in generations” refers to one of not-Anglo-London-linked.

Or Oligarch’s clarification is a mere inherited-ly-bitten-into pro-AUSSIE kowtowing to the rest of disputants, perhaps?

MichaelK, English is my second language. Maybe that is why I have enormous difficulty understanding what you are trying to say.

I gather you are of the opinion that Australians are governed by fascists and Australians generally are racists and against anyone not of English background. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If true, I have difficulty with someone who is not that familiar with the language and the nuances of the local form of the language having such strong views about us Australians.

My views as seeing multiculturalism as a positive for Australia known. Having said that, I also am aware of the many voices who see this as detrimental to Australia. I think this is only sometimes because of overtly racist beliefs. I understand that mostly it has to do with the worry that it divides Australians into groups of people who will not, or cannot communicate. Anyone who works in a big Australian organization knows this of course is not so.

I think that where MC falls foul is when there is too much emphasis given to what could offend another culture when living your own culture. This is where irritatingly silly political correctness creeps in. I doubt very much that these concerns were ever actually voiced by the supposedly 'offended' culture. And why would they be offended anyway. There is no compulsion to participate.

Respecting other cultures does not mean limiting the expression of festivities and celebrations. On the contrary, it gives an opportunity to see how all peoples celebrate, grief and worship.

Yvonne, your post,long and pointlessly sarcastic as mostly of posts you address to non-native speakers yourself belonging to, definitely stipulates me once again to remain of on these pages expressed already one’s opinion toward yours AUSTRALIANESS: it was explained, that as descending from non-Anglo-background, you could only be an appendix to AUSTRALIANS.

Factually, your problem is not in the mere understanding of a primitive language English is, but it is your mentality of playing Aussie more then neither you are / AUSSIES ACCEPT you to be.

No stylistic imperfectness in my post has been detected.
Enjoy

yvonne said: "Having said that, I also am aware of the many voices who see this as detrimental to Australia. I think this is only sometimes because of overtly racist beliefs. I understand that mostly it has to do with the worry that it divides Australians into groups of people who will not, or cannot communicate."

I understand the desire for immigrants to maintain some aspects of their culture in Australia. But surely their desire must come under the umbrella of overriding commitment to Australian culture, Australian institutions and Australian values? Or why come here in the first place? What is the moral imperative for Australia's core culture be relegated to just another other cultural group among many? What is the moral imperative for a Western country like Australia to allow itself to become a colony for non-Western civilizations?

I've always been perplexed by the motivations of the vociferous migrant and multicultural groups who condemn those Australians who wish to maintain their traditional culture. Why is it so difficult for such people to recognize and respect that Australia had its own culture and history prior to the introduction of state-sanctioned multiculturalism? Or do they honestly believe that the modern nation-state of Australia just built itself for the benefit of all the world's tribes?

Noice, just noice of “maintaining own culture” (excluding Anglo-racism surely) is a weak excuse for reality, of which delusions of “maintaining own culture” is an excuse in advance for not providing degrees/not qualifying officially, not employing but sometimes taken on cash-in-hands-"volunteers" for professional positions especially, not promoting non-Anglos in Australia.

That is what “multiculturalism” is.

GO TO HELL WITH YOUR ENGLAND ONE DAY!

You tell em MichaelK, you and your kind ought to be running Australia and if no one knows what it is your saying tough sh'ite. I mean what kinda world is it when a fellow can't walk out of the surf one day and take over the next. If these multi-fluff socialist truly believed in that nonsense then by right you should be the new dictator of Australian social management. It's only fair when your playing victim rules.

Oligarch, I think we actually agree. Multiculturalism is not about new migrants 'hanging on' to their own culture because it is somehow superior to another. Because then, indeed why come here in the first place.

The reason why people want to migrate to Australia is precisely because of its values. Political and societal. The respect and freedoms accorded in our society allows people to maintain certain aspect of their culture by choice, not societal coercion, to examine other aspects and perhaps discard them and most certainly adopt new cultural values. This is inevitable, especially with our children.

Culture is not static. As anyone will tell you who has been back to a previous homeland, wherever that may be. This goes for Australia as well.

In these discussions I wish someone would tell which Australian 'cultural values' have been eroded/negated/destroyed because of migrants from a variety of cultural back-grounds. Australian society is much more robust than many of you seem to think. We'll never become 'French', 'Chinese', 'Muslim',or whatever, we'll remain Australian

“The reason why people want to migrate to Australia is precisely because of its values. Political and societal… I wish someone would tell which Australian 'cultural values' have been eroded/negated/destroyed because of migrants from a variety of cultural back-grounds.”

So, migrants adopted anti-terrorist law making a mockery of all these “values” ,if any were at all, practically with Haneef Case.

How STUPID!

Let's not delude ourselves.

Migrants come to Australia for economic reasons, not because they have some affinity for Australia's people or culture. The presense of thousands of Chinese spies in Australia, or the fact that many Chinese migrants refer to Australians as “foreign devils” (yang guizi) hardly indicates some great loyalty or respect for Australians and their culture and values, now does it?

"One nation, one destiny"? Wasn't that the point of Federation?
Can you imagine the Federationists getting up and saying "We propose uniting the colonies together, even though it means absolutely nothing."

There was no "infamous White Australia Policy". We had a BRITISH-biased immigration policy. And why wouldn't we; they're the ones who created the colonies! British people just happen to have pale skin.
The limits were extended to Europeans eventually, not because they're "white", but culturally related.
At the time, we had a "populate or perish" mentality, so wanted LOTS of migrants, but not just from ANYWHERE.
We needed some guarantee of continued stability. The criteria pre-MC was always culture, not race. We may be a nation of migrants, but until recently all of them were culturally related.

Culture isn't just how you cook food or ornament your attire. It is your entire life, mind, being, reality.
If an individual person asserts they have multiple realities, we put them in a padded cell, but we are supposed to believe that disconnected cultural realities within the same society are wonderful, beneficial, benign and could never have negative consequences!

The writers use the term "forcefully assimilate". Who ever FORCED assimilation. The very word acknowledges the notion of gradual adaptation. Assimilation is inevitable over time, provided it isn't "forcefully prevented".

And just what are "the potentially dangerous and socially destructive consequences of the proposed cultural assimilation approach"? The authors don't say. The French example in fact shows the dangers of multicultural immigration, not the dangers of assimmilation.

"Speaking in terms of “dominant cultural patterns” invariably overlooks the reality: that Australia’s social fabric is not just British and Judeo-Christian".
Yes, but it's MOSTLY British and Judeo-Christian, and as that's where we came from, that IS the reality.

"Suppress something and people will feel resentment". Yes, like suppressing the notion of a shared history, identity, reality, that has a known and obvious origin: Britain/Europe/Western Civilisation.

This article is about as nutritious to the mind as a marshmallow is to the body. PC propaganda.

Shockadelic asserts, 'There was no "infamous White Australia Policy".'

Attorney-General Alfred Deakin, introducing the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, told Parliament:

'…we should be one people without the admixture of other races…[T]hey do not and cannot blend with us;…we do not, cannot and ought not to blend with them.'

With regard to the non-whites Indigenous people, Deakin said they were ‘a dying race’ but ‘…let us hope that in their last hours they will be able to recognise not simply the justice, but the generosity of the treatment which the white race, who are dispossessing them and entering into their heritage, are according them.’

Of the other thousands of non-whites already in Australia (e.g. Pacific Islanders, Chinese and Afghans), Deakin said a small number could be made honorary whites but the majority would have to be deported.

Deakin mounted a curious argument about the Japanese. We should exclude them ‘in the most considerate manner possible,’ he said, because they were ‘the most dangerous because they most nearly approach us’. They were dangerous because they were the most likely to be able to be our economic competitors. So skilled Japanese entrepreneurs were not wanted because they represented a threat but unskilled whites were welcome. (Warhaft, ed. Well May They Say: the speeches that made Australia, Black Inc, 2004, pp. 216-226)

During the war with Japan, Labor Prime Minister John Curtin was quite frank, saying ' this country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race' (Fact Sheet No 8, DIMIA, 26 November 2003).

By 1956, the year of the Melbourne Olympics, the Liberal Minister for Immigration, Sir Alexander Downer (Senior), announced that Australia would grant residency rights to non-Europeans who were ‘distinguished and highly qualified’. ‘We have no objection’ said Downer, ‘to Asians of distinguished character and achievement coming to live amongst us.’ (Leck & Templeton, Bold Experiment; a documentary history of Australian immigration since 1945, OUP 1995 p. 166).

The White Australia Policy had begun to be dismantled.

Surely, Dresdener, migrants come here for a better life and not all of them are simply low-skilled in general fields criminals, Nazis and fascist collaborators as predominantly a post-WWII wave of immigration swept into Australia.

And Vietnamese board people of late 70/80th hardly possessed any qualifications but murdering and prostitution in South Vietnam either.

Educated Chileans and Serbians as many others, even Australian-born returned to their nations’ cradles as conditions there changed.

Very shy and near-unnoticed results of somewhere-in-Sydney university research slipped two days ago via some stations: recent migrants to Australia are much better educated and experienced than AUSSIES. It seems, channel 7 provided comments of migration gurus covering with smiles and sophisticated English a reality of mere racism not allowing deployment of bright talented non-Anglo professionals locally.

Any wonder that Chinese are being accused by some in spying around? Illiteral rednecks are always paranoiac, in Australia or wherever where no personal merits but royalties and protectionism based on caste difference, mafia belonging or simply mateship or “inherited right” rule.

Shockadelic is correct in asserting that there was no 'infamous White Australia Policy'. Rather, Australia's immigration program was aimed at preserving the nation's Anglo-Celtic character. People tend to forget that Canada, New Zealand and other countries also had similar policies.

Following Arthur Calwell's 'Populate or Perish' warning, immigration was widened to include other Europeans, on the grounds that they were ethnically and culturally similar to Australia's host population and would be able to assimilate rather seamlessly.

Curtin's quote about Australia remaining “forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race” is not an example of egregious racism. Rather, it was an expression of Curtin's belief in ethnic nationalism, a form of nationalism still practised by the vast majority of the world's nations. Furthermore, Curtin's quote was made during the context of WWII, when the threat of Japanese invasion was real.

I dare say that the ever evasive FrankGol is guilty of oversimplification. He appears unwilling or unable to look at immigrants in terms other than 'white' and 'non-white', ignoring notions of ethnicity, culture and civilisation.

In 2002, India began issuing residency cards to the 20 million “people of Indian origin” currently living in Western countries, specifically writing the legislation to exclude any European people born in India. To use crude and imprecise terms, does this mean that India has a 'Brown India Policy'? Is this an example of a racist immigration policy?

This is an issue of almost total, mind-numbing hypocrisy among Western governments and intellectual elites. They defend the inalienable right of other peoples – the Palestinians, the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, the East Timorese – to invoke the right of ethnic nationalism, but not their own peoples.

Shockadelic said: "The writers use the term "forcefully assimilate". Who ever FORCED assimilation. The very word acknowledges the notion of gradual adaptation. Assimilation is inevitable over time, provided it isn't "forcefully prevented"."

Assimilation should not be the dirty word it has become in our Orwellian, multiculturalist, politically-correct society. Of course, the policy of assimilation was driven by the belief that immigration should serve the national interest. Contrast this with the present 'multicultural' picture of Western societies increasingly living with the disconcerting consciousness that they are being continuously transformed into extensions of the Third World through population movements and the formation of non-assimilating migrant diasporic communities in their midst.

FrankGol, it's all very well to quote politician's speeches, but they are not the LAW.
Immigration is determined by legislation, not speeches. You mention the Immigration Act of 1901, but conveniently don't quote from.
Why is that FrankGol? Maybe because you know very well it makes no provision for racial discrimination!

And you didn't address any point I raised.

A on rise convictional wisdom of the world is that Australia is a country of racists.

Just displaced and fleeing for their lives “boys of Sudan” of different countries could be understood for reasons made them coming to Australia.

However, they not always fit Anglo-racist well-live predicament of 1956 mentioned above as some of them really left countries too young to have skills but murdering and raping, and some steady the native land mafia-supplied sourcing to rely in Australia on.

Shockadelic

You – and Oligarch - are in denial about the White Australia Policy. But you can’t re-write history to suit your own wishes.

I quoted from Hansard (12/9/1901) the second reading speech of Attorney-General Alfred Deakin who was introducing the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. Second reading speeches are universally accepted as the responsible minister’s explanation of the intention of the legislation under debate.

In his speech, Deakin used the term repeatedly. E.g. “The program of a ‘white Australia’ means not merely its preservation for the future – it means the consideration of those who cannot be classed within the category of whites, but who have found their way into our midst.”

When referring to the intention to (a) prohibit ‘coloured people’ coming into Australia and (b) deport ‘coloureds’ already here, Deakin said, “The two things go hand in hand and are a necessary complement of a single policy – the policy of securing a ‘White Australia’…If we exclude all coloured peoples we go a long way towards obtaining a white Australia…Members on both sides of the House…are all united in the unalterable resolve that this Commonwealth shall be established on the firm foundation of unity of race…”

Opposition to the Bill was minimal. All parties supported it: e.g. "We want a White Australia and are we to be denied it because we shall offend the Japanese or embarrass His Majesty's ministers? I think not…” (Billy Hughes, Hansard 12/9/1901 p. 4825). The Act was overwhelmingly passed and assented to on23/12/1901.

The mechanism used to exclude non-whites was the Dictation Test (clause 3 (a)) whereby non-whites were given a written test of 50 words in any European language chosen by an immigration officer. If the prospective immigrant passed, but was considered to be racially unsuitable, the officer could then give the test in another European language until they failed.

There's a a full transcript of the Act at:
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth4ii_doc_1901a.pdf
Its full title was: “An Act to place certain restrictions on Immigration and to provide for the removal from the Commonwealth of prohibited Immigrants”.

Now what other question was that Shockaholic?

Thanks for the link. Now everyone can see there is no mention of excluding people because of their race.

In fact, the act specifically exempts Pacific Islanders working in Queensland and any migrant already living in Australia!

The only sections that could be construed as "racial" are the fining of ship captains who bring stowaways who aren't European (people smugglers), and the compulsory dictation test for non-British migrants who COMMIT VIOLENT CRIMES!

We see the words "British" and "European" (cultural definitions), but not "white" (biology).

Yes, the dictation test COULD be applied, but wasn't compulsory unless specifically requested by an appointed officer.
And, hello, the test was in EUROPEAN languages, i.e. CULTURAL CRITERIA.

What people were prohibited?
The destitute, the insane, infectious/contagious invalids, criminals, prostitutes, mercenary labourers who would take jobs from Australian workers.

Should these people have been permitted entry? It seems the point of the act wasn't preserving race, but cultural standards.

What other points did I raise? I have to repeat myself, do I?

Oligarch noticed the questioning of "forced assimilation" which is an oxymoron.

Then there was the analogy between multiple personality disorder (bad/sick) and multiculturalism (good/healthy). If multiple realities in an individual indicate something's wrong with them, why not societies?

The article authors (remember them?) rejected the idea of a "dominant cultural pattern", even though we obviously have one: British/Judeo-Christian/European. What's WRONG with that?

Here's a new question: Were you aware that in the early 20th century the terms "race", "nation", "people" and "culture" were SYNONYMS?

Me-thinks perhaps it is you, FrankGol, who are trying to re-write history.

Now please don't quote any more speeches or ask me to repeat things I've already said.

Shockadelic

You claim it was not race but culture that drove the White Australia Policy (WAP). When the PM told Parliament that the equality of all men was “never intended to include racial equality… There is no racial equality”, no-one misunderstood. (Hansard, 26/9/1901, p.5233)

True, the Act does not mention race. International objections, e.g. from the UK, Japan and India, made this a delicate political problem. The Dictation Test was the practical solution.

You correctly say, “the test was in EUROPEAN languages” but incorrectly construe language to be “CULTURAL CRITERIA”. It was perfectly clear why the Act mandated European languages and not ASIAN or AFRICAN languages.

Everyone administering the Test knew what was wanted. Instructions were issued by the Chief Clerk in each State. An example:
"All aboriginal inhabitants of Africa, Asia and Polynesia should be subjected to the test unless they come within the exceptions to Section 3, or are Pacific Island labourers... In the case of White Races, the test will be applied only under special circumstances (qu. Norris, 'The Emergent Commonwealth, MUP 1975).

On 28/5/1902, the Departmental Secretary wrote to the PM, Barton: "… We continue to eject the monstrous Jap and the wily Chow...The April returns show that no coloured aliens passed the test..." (NLA, MS 51/1/976).

You claim that the Act specifically “exempted Pacific Islanders working in Queensland and any migrant already living in Australia!” Right on the first; wrong on the second. The reason for the first was they were dealt with differently. Under the Pacific Island Labourers Act, recruiting had to cease in 1904 and as many Pacific Islanders as possible had to be repatriated by 1907. Under the Sugar Cultivation Act 1913 all non-white canefield laborers had to pass the dictation test.

You claim “the act wasn't preserving race, but cultural standards” then ask: “Were you aware that in the early 20th century the terms ‘race’, ‘nation’, ‘people’ and ‘culture’ were SYNONYMS?”

Have you not just destroyed your own argument? If race and culture are synonyms, then exclusion on cultural grounds is the same as exclusion on racial grounds.

"True, the Act does not mention race."
At last, he admits it!

But then the usual routine:
"You correctly say, “the test was in EUROPEAN languages” but incorrectly construe language to be “CULTURAL CRITERIA”."

WHAT?! Language isn't cultural? What have you been smoking?

You quote a book published in 1975 (just whose recollections were they?):
"All aboriginal inhabitants of Africa, Asia and Polynesia should be subjected to the test unless they come within the exceptions to Section 3, or are Pacific Island labourers"

Again, we see the Pacific Islanders exempted.
And the aboriginal inhabitants of Africa, Asia and Polynesia?
Different races coincide with different CULTURES!
The two go together, but you insist everything's about race and only race.

An aboriginal inhabitant of Asia isn't just an Asian body (race), but an Asian mind.
And mind is the birthplace and home of culture.

You say: "You claim that the Act specifically “exempted Pacific Islanders working in Queensland and any migrant already living in Australia” Right on the first; wrong on the second."

Sorry, right on both counts.
Read section 3(n) again: "Any person who satisfies an officer that he has formerly been domiciled in the Commonwealth or in any colony which has become a State".
Migrants who can prove they've already been living here are exempt!

QUEENSLAND legislation (The Pacific Island Labourers Act, the Sugar Cultivation Act) only apply in that state, and federal law (see above) overules state law.

"Have you not just destroyed your own argument? If race and culture are synonyms, then exclusion on cultural grounds is the same as exclusion on racial grounds."

I said they WERE synonyms. My own CONTEMPORARY use of words obviously has the current meaning. I wouldn't think I would need to explain this to you.

My point was that in 1901, if someone said "the white race" or "a white nation" they may mean what we today would call "European culture".

The meaning of words can change over time.
If someone had a "gay" time in 1930, it had nothing to do with drag queens and leathermen.
Same spelling, different meaning.

Shockadelic

If your aim is to deceive, you need to better understand the historical facts. I wonder whether you’re up to it when you comprehend so little.

You distort my statements to suit your purpose. e.g. I said: "True, the Act does not mention race" and went on to explain why the Government did not use the word ‘race’. It was politically awkward so they devised the dictation test.

“At last, he admits it!” you pounce - but deceitfully omit reference to the historically documented explanation and the rock-solid evidence I gave which shows clearly that the Government was motivated by racist beliefs.

You mischievously distort what I said about the choice of European languages. The pointed omission of non-European languages was a device to exclude non-whites.

You say I quote a book published in 1975 but you fail to understand that the ‘qu.’ in a reference shows that an original quotation is quoted in that text, and is not the 1975 author’s.

You pick up my reference to Pacific Island labourers being exempted and again you ignore the documented explanation that they were exempted because the Federal Government was dealing with them under different legislation. You then claim: “QUEENSLAND legislation (The Pacific Island Labourers Act, the Sugar Cultivation Act) only apply in that state, and federal law … overules state law.” But the two Acts were not Queensland Acts – they were Federal.

You claim that deportation of existing inhabitants was not part of the Act. You quote s3(n) - the residence clause. But s4 provided that such exemptions were temporary and could be cancelled at any time. And many were.

Your crude account of the historical relationship between races and cultures is drivel. You confirm your own logical contradiction, but you get further into the logical swamp: “I said they WERE synonyms…My point was that in 1901, if someone said "the white race" or "a white nation" they may mean what we today would call "European culture". The reverse must have been true too.

Do some reading, and critical thinking, before you tackle this topic again.

“Thanks for the link. Now everyone can see there is no mention of excluding people because of their race” – no mentioning of not-employing non-Anglos in Australia either, but “the Australian government does not provide a job on arrival in Australia” as the independent category visa/skilled migration application form explanations stated.

Practically, it might be understood as clearing themselves from a factual betrayal while luring overseas non-Anglo-professionals to this for-Anglos-only English colony, and recent influx of one-day-to-graduate-chefs-of-Punjabi-descend is the perfect example of irresponsibility and short vision the privileged to be employed in Australia mates-in this case immigration officials demonstrate once again.

s4 does not apply to s3(n) (residents, no mention of certificates), but it is actually referring to s3(h), people specifically noted as possessing a certificate of exemption.

You see biological race and only race in the Dictation Test, but it's "perfectly clear" European languages are linguistically related to English, the language of the British colonists, who had been migrating here for 113 years before federation.
A quite specific cultural reality existed here in 1901. Not surprisingly, some wanted to keep it that way.

Words can have multiple meanings or change meaning over time.
This is why quoting hundred-year old speeches can be misleading.

People wanted a "White Australia"? This is a convenient shorthand.
Try having a conversation repeatedly filled with the phrase "British/European/Judeo-Christian/Western Civilisation"!
"White" is just so much easier.

"White" culture and "white" race evolved together over millenia, disconnected from the other continents, where other races and cultures were evolving.

In 1901, a person's racial features were a pretty accurate match with their cultural background.
The EFFECT of this law restricted races, but that would also result if the INTENTION was to restrict CULTURAL BACKGROUND.

On a list of repealed QUEENSLAND legislation, there are two acts with identical titles to the Federal ones.
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Leg_Info/repealed_annotations/Tab1_RepAlpha_P.pdf
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Leg_Info/repealed_annotations/Tab1_RepAlpha_S.pdf

The Pacific Island Labourers Act of Queenland actually dates from 1880, 21 years BEFORE the Federal one!
As these matters concerned Queensland, I quite reasonably presumed you were referring to state law.

So far FrankGol has said I:
"deceitfully omit"
"fail to understand"
am "in denial"
"re-write history to suit my own wishes"
"incorrectly construe"
am "wrong"
"mischievously distort"
"destroy my own argument"
"aim to deceive"
"need to better understand the historical facts" but "wonders whether I'm up to it when I comprehend so little"
"distort his statements to suit my purpose"
"pounce" on the only admitted flaw in his argument
need to "do some reading, and critical thinking, before I tackle this topic again"
and that my "crude account of the historical relationship between races and cultures is drivel".

Ah, character assassination, the last refuge of the desperate failure.

A comprehensive list Shockadelic, you've done well - and it's worth repeating:

"deceitfully omit"
"fail to understand"
"in denial"
"re-write history to suit my own wishes"
"incorrectly construe"
"wrong"
"mischievously distort"
"destroy my own argument"
"aim to deceive"
"need to better understand the historical facts"
"wonders whether I'm up to it when I comprehend so little"
"distort his statements to suit my purpose"
"pounce" on the only admitted flaw in his argument
"do some reading, and critical thinking, before I tackle this topic again"
"crude account of the historical relationship between races and cultures is drivel".

Nothing to do with character assassination, though Shockadelic as you suggest, just an accurate summation of your approach and lack of knowledge.

Actually Shockadelic, there was a 'white Australia' policy. It was not seen by all migration officers as a way of 'screening' immigrants for 'cultural' compatibility if that was indeed the motive.

My family's experience with Australian visa applications in the early 70's from Europe is not unique. There should have been no problems with our 'cultural' compatibility, but there were a lot of problems, until my father brought in the photo's of his wife and children. The visas were ready the next day. We were all born in exotic 'coloured' places you see. The 'problems' became clear to my father after some questions and comments form the officer.

I just wanted to add this, though I know that personal experiences do not hold much sway with some posters who are horrified that Australia is evolving and no longer the same as the 1960's

Actually Shockadelic, there was a 'white Australia' policy. It was not seen by all migration officers as a way of 'screening' immigrants for 'cultural' compatibility if that was indeed the underlying motives as you claim.

My family's experience with Australian visa applications in the early 70's from Europe is not unique. There should have been no problems with our 'cultural' compatibility, but there were a lot of problems, until my father brought in the photo's of his wife and children. The visas were ready the next day. We were all born in exotic 'coloured' places you see. The 'problems' became clear to my father after some questions and comments form the officer.

I just wanted to add this, though I know that personal experiences do not hold much sway with some posters who are horrified that Australia is evolving and no longer the same as the 1960's

FrankGol, post the list on your mirror where it belongs.

You have repeatedly belittled and insulted others.

Only ever address mistakes they make (didn't use the EXACT CORRECT WORDS), but never notice any wise observations that contradict you.

Fail to understand even the simplest analogy (The Soviet New Man, The Austria-Hungary Empire, multiple personality disorder).

Refute that there's any connection between race and culture?!

And wrap your elitist ego in your dusty hundred-year-old speeches instead of seeing what's happening today. We live in 2007 not 1901.

I quote your precious Deakin back at you:
"We should be one people without the admixture of other races. They do not and CANNOT blend with us; we do not, CANNOT and ought not to blend with them."

CANNOT BLEND? Is he referring to biology here?

ANY race can blend physically with another, so how could he say this "cannot" happen?

Could it be, just as I have said all along, that the underlying factor is culture?

Was Deakin, in fact, referring to the impossibility of cultural blending?
Can someone born in and programmed mentally with the values, beliefs, concepts and behavioural patterns of a NON-EUROPEAN culture (remember the test?) ever really "blend" with us?

Mind and body cannot be separated.
If a person born and raised in China has Chinese body (race) they also have a Chinese mind (culture).

If a government wanted to exclude CULTURAL groups, they would have to by default exclude RACIAL groups, wouldn't they?
This doesn't mean the INTENTION was racial, that is a by-product.

You have mentioned in your posts that multicultural immigration is a "choice" the public must have accepted because we didn't throw the governments involved out of power.

How is there a "choice" if we are "non-discriminatory".
We cannot CHOOSE to have MORE Icelanders, or LESS Lithuanians, because that would be "discriminatory". Therefore, WE aren't choosing anything, the only one choosing is the migrant.

"Non-discrimination" in migration, is effectively shrugging our shoulders and going "Whatever!". Is this how you build a strong nation, indifferently shrugging your shoulders.
Who cares! Whatever!

Multiculturalism has become a bad word for the same reason political correctness in general has.

We've seen it right here in FrankGol: the arrogant, tedious, rude, and ironically intolerant attitude of those supporting the agenda.

In political correctness, there is ONE and ONLY ONE correct answer to any question.
One correct policy, one correct opinion.

Nuclear Power: No.
GM crops: No
Abortion: Free universal access.
Immigration: Massive non-discriminatory multicultural

These opinions may sound great in theory, as ideals.
But they impose a dictatorial "thought regime" on everybody.

Any alternative opinions or answers are dismissed as stupid or evil.

Any intelligent person knows the world is not so simple that only one single answer can exist for every question.
There are millions of possible answers (and some of them you won't like).

Take immigration. We could have policies that are based on:
1 Age
2 Wealth
3 Family type
4 Language
5 Education
6 Cultural background
7 Religion
8 Sexuality
9 Race
or any combination of those factors or other factors.

We could increase, decrease or omit any factor.

We could have rich African families only, middle class unmarried Asians only, poor Lithuanian lesbians only.
And only a certain number of them.
And for a limited or unlimited period of time.

We could theoretically INCLUDE any type of migrant, and EXCLUDE any type of migrant. Using ANY criteria.

Or we could have no immigration at all. Which is also an option.

And don't mention "anti-disrimination" law as a justification for an indifferent migrant intake as that, like all laws, can be repealed or amended.

I'm glad I met FrankGol here, it's made me all the more certain that it's impossible to debate anything with these people.

Shockadelic has omitted the most important selection’s criterion, which is ability of a newcomer to be rapidly converted into a cattle ready for any “volunteer” -paid WITH dole- work, while just silently obeying stupid illiteral orders of a boss because of agreeing to have in generations oncoming been a lower creature happy only for having the of-England-native sheppard, while dobbing on so-workers for securing this dirty workplace.

Please, read Howard's IR and correct me.

Shockadelic

You started this thread with the claim that: ‘There was no "infamous White Australia Policy". We had a BRITISH-biased immigration policy.’

I produced the evidence from the original sources to demonstrate that the policy was indeed race-based. You then accused me of living in the past, with my ‘dusty hundred-year-old speeches’. But look back to your first posting: you took us to the past with your no "infamous White Australia Policy" assertion.

You then tried to twist Deakin’s meaning by saying he wasn’t talking about race but culture. But the fact is that he and his PM Barton at the time made it perfectly clear they were talking about biological races not being able to mix. It was a dominant belief at the time the White Australia Policy was introduced.

Having been chastened in the debate on the historical facts, you then broadened the debate to ‘political correctness’ with the claim that ‘people like me’ think there’s only one correct answer to any question. And you link immigration to other hot topics as if people fall into a ‘For’ or ‘Against’ camp on them as a job lot.

‘Nuclear Power: No.
GM crops: No
Abortion: Free universal access.
Immigration: Massive non-discriminatory multicultural.’

Sorry to disappoint you again with the facts, but the truth is I don’t hold a simple view on any of the four issues you artificially yolk together. Nor do I ‘impose a dictatorial "thought regime" on everybody’. I have nuanced views on each of the topics, and so do many of my friends.

As you correctly say: ‘Any intelligent person knows the world is not so simple that only one single answer can exist for every question.’ I’d go one step further: intelligent people understand that there are many different ways of framing the questions that need to be answered.

You say that my debate with you has made you ‘all the more certain that it's impossible to debate anything with these people’. To which I say: I debate with anyone who’s prepared to rely on proper evidence and clear, logical argument.

As usual, you "mischievously distort" my words (and Deakin's: he said blend, not mix).

I never said you held any agenda, I said you were symptomatic of the ATTITUDES of certain people.
You seem to have great difficulty understanding non-literal language: analogy, metaphor, hypothesis, illustrative.

You "deceitfully omit" reference to my hypothesis: that ANY of millions of possible immigration policies could exist.
Why is the current policy more preferable?

I didn't "take us to the past". The article did.
I personally don't care what the motivations of Deakin and Barton were.
I'm concerned about the present.

It's "perfectly clear" that in 1901 the words "race" and "white" had much more complex meanings than they do today.

Yvonne and Oligarch had already referred to political correctness.
Multiculturalism IS a "politically correct" ideology.

The SAME people support both:
the "pinko/leftist/ABC/Fairfax/union/Muslim/feminist/gay/green/chardonnay swilling/latte sipping/humanities lecturers/Marxist/state school teachers/Howard-Haters conspiracy".

The people involved in this agenda hold the exact compulsory opinions that I noted about nuclear power, abortion, and GM crops.

Try joining the Greens if you disagree with ANY part of their agenda. You will be osctracised.

John Anderson called them "watermelons": green outside, red inside.
An appropriate metaphor (uh-oh). It shows their inherent contradictions.
The green part wants freedom, the red wants to control everything.

The watermelons:
Want to maintain indigenous cultures around the world, but ban FUR.
Oppose capital punishment, but don't blink an eye at the abortion of millions of foetuses.(Save the Baby Killers. Kill the Babies.)
Want vegetarianism, but oppose genetic modifications to increase the protein content of vegetables.
Want women's rights, but also Muslim migrants.

They want their cake and eat it too.
Or rather, they want several different cakes and try to eat them all at once.

The watermelon agenda is definitely "For" or "Against".
All or nothing.
They want to live in an IDEAL world, not the real one.

The problem is two perfectly reasonable ideals may contradict each other.
And a less than ideal policy like "White Australia" might actually work better in the real world.

I have offered many "clear, logical arguments". You just ignore them.

Schockadelic,

You seem to infer that I claim that Multi Culturalism is the same as political correctness. I did not. And why do you think that political correctness has to do with one correct opinion, one correct policy?

I support multi-culturalism. Therefore, I have enormous problems with people, of any ilk, confusing this with multi-nationalism. They are very different things. The EU is a multi-national entity for instance. Multi-cultural Australia has Australian patriots who have different cultural backgrounds.

Political correctness is another discussion altogether. Personally I prefer people to openly express what they think. This is the only way to 1. know what they ARE thinking and 2. encourage debate and exposure to allay fears. I’m not really one for political correctness at all, it drives irrational fears towards other humans underground and becomes like festering wounds ready to erupt.

Otherwise you make some strange claims. Anti-capital punishment = pro-abortion (the US in reverse), vegetarianism = anti GM, pro indigenous peoples = anti fur (did I get this right?), feminist = pro Muslim migration. How, oh how did you come to these conclusions?

People and their opinions are not so neatly divided into two opposing camps.

And another thing, the latte sipping, Chardonnay swilling thing is getting very tiresome don’t you think? Australia makes some of the world’s best Chardonnay, so it’s probably bordering on rank anti-Australian sentiment to bag Chardonnay. ‘Lefties’ I know like strong black espressos and Shiraz or beer, none drink latte. I also know a committed conservative Christian non-feminist woman who only drinks latte. I like a flat white, never a cappucino-too much hot air with all the froth.

Shockadelic

So I "mischievously distort" your words and Deakin's: he said “blend”, not “mix” (although you ‘…don't care what the motivations of Deakin and Barton were’).

As a master wordsmith and connoisseur of synonyms, you will be able to tell me the difference between “blend” and “mix”? And apply it to this context?

You say I "deceitfully omit" reference to your hypothesis: ‘that ANY of millions of possible immigration policies could exist. Why is the current policy more preferable?’ I’m not sure which “current policy” you mean. Is it the Howrd Government’s current large-scale non-discriminatory immigration policy (the largest ever) or the current policy of integration which Mr Howard quietly introduced recently to replace multiculturalism?

You say: ‘The SAME people support both: the "pinko/leftist/ABC/Fairfax/union/Muslim/
feminist/gay/green/chardonnay swilling/latte sipping/humanities lecturers/Marxist/state school teachers/Howard-Haters conspiracy". The people involved in this agenda hold the exact compulsory opinions that I noted about nuclear power, abortion, and GM crops.’ Wow!

Yes, I know the world is complex and it helps some to simplify it. But to lump together all your favourite hates and assert they reside as the common beliefs of one identifiable group of Australians is perverse. I suppose it demonstrates more about you and your hates than it reveals about any other real Australian I know.

Your beef with the “watermelon” Greens is of no interest to me. I’m not a member. Go fight them.

Your final word on the real subject is of more concern: ‘…a less than ideal policy like "White Australia" might actually work better in the real world.’

Can you tell me how you would get a "White Australia" policy into “the real world” of Australia? How would it work? I’m sure the 455,026 Indigenous Australians will want to know what you propose for them in your White Australia. As will the 700,000 Australians with Chinese ancestry, the 235,000 with Indian ancestry, and so on.

Do tell.

Yvonne, you've come down with FrankGol's "literal language" virus.

I said you "referred to" political correctness. And I didn't say you were against multiculturalism.

I "make some strange claims"?.
I didn't state that one opinion automatically implies another.
Only that certain people hold contradictory opinions.
The CONSERVATIVES in the US are pro-capital punishment and anti-abortion, not the "progressive" watermelons.

And the "Chardonnay swilling" list was a quote from an earlier post.
Not a LITERAL statement of who drinks latte or chardonnay.
Is there a treatment for this virus?

And FrankGol (unfortunately):
Why do I get the feeling I'm talking to a 3-year old?
"No, Frank, I said DON'T touch the stove!"

Blend? Mix?
You're "educated". I presume you own a dictionary.
Open it and read it.
Notice the multiple meanings?
Just like there would have been for "white" and "race" a hundred years ago.

Which "current policy"?
As you know, the "quietly introduced" policy of integration has not actually changed the immigration intake, has it?

The government may prefer integration but the "choice" is the migrants', not the locals'.

Apparently, now I'm a hatemonger:
"lump together all your favourite hates", "you and your hates".
The tongue-in-cheek quote was from another post, not a list of my own personal hates.
"Incorrectly misconstrued"?

The Greens are only the formal tip of the "watermelon" iceberg. And I never said you were one.

A "White Australia" policy in "the real world" of today?
What of the Indigenous, Chinese, Indians?

Oh, you're SO CLEVER!
The White Australia policy, Mr History Professor, was an IMMIGRATION policy and therefore DIDN'T apply to Aboriginals, nor would any contemporary IMMIGRATION policy!

The fact there are 700,000 Chinese and 235,000 Indians disproves your own assertions that little demographic change is occurring.
There's plenty of Indians in India and Chinese in China.
They aren't "endangered species" that need our help to survive.

Here's more food for thought (or more likely, complete misinterpretation):
If the White Australia policy was just about race, not culture, why weren't Indians, Iranians and Arabs encouraged to migrate?

They're Causasian, right?
But they're definitely not CULTURALLY RELATED.

Shockadelic,

could you please read my post again? I'm quite simple. Generally I literally mean what I say. You don't have to read between the lines, interpret or second guess. That's so English class at High School. Admittedly on occasion I have been a bit sarcastic.

If you think there is a literal virus going around and you want to communicate your thoughts then an effective method is to literally say what you mean.

On the issue of cultures. The culture of a white English man is more similar to the culture of a brown Iranian man, but very different from a white French man. Speaking from a woman's point of view of course.

What do you mean by 'culturally related'? How do you classify and sort cultures? By continent? By religion? By proximity? Remember the French and Germans hate and mistrust each other and share a long border and history and the Irish and English have killed each other for some 400 years. Are they culturally related?

Shockadelic

One last try and then I give up.

You say (or should I say SHOUT?), ‘The White Australia policy, Mr History Professor, was an IMMIGRATION policy and therefore DIDN'T apply to Aboriginals, nor would any contemporary IMMIGRATION policy!’

As I’ve already pointed out, the Attorney-General Alfred Deakin, introducing the Act that ushered in the White Australia Policy, told the Australian Parliament that the Indigenous people were ‘a dying race’ but he hoped that ‘…in their last hours they will be able to recognise not simply the justice, but the generosity of the treatment which the white race, who are dispossessing them and entering into their heritage, are according them.’

So the Indigenous Australians were going to die out and we were so generous to allow them to do it. That was the role assigned to Indigenous Australians under the White Australia Policy. It was certainly not just an immigration policy.

You’ll recall that Deakin also said that of the other many non-whites already in Australia a small number could be made honorary whites but the majority would have to be deported.

Now, once again, let’s turn to your claim that ‘…a less than ideal policy like "White Australia" might actually work better in the real world.’

What are you, Shockadelic, going to do with Indigenous Australians and other non-white Australians in your neo-White Australia?

Maybe I've misunderstood what you mean by “white”? Is it just another example of your (what was it?) non-literal language, analogy, metaphor, hypothesis, illustrative? Or one of your words with multiple meanings?

Seems pretty black-and-white to this 3-year-old History Professor. The Boers and the KKK had no problems comprehending what “white” meant. And I don't think you do either.

Yvonne, cultures don't have to love each other to be related, just ask the Serbs and Croats!

Geographical proximity (or lack of it) created linguistic, religious and racial overlaps (or lack of them).

Cultures related to us are European or other former European colonies (if the colonial culture dominates). Problem solved!

Unlike yourself, I often take the "devil's advocate" role, simply because a point hasn't been addressed by anybody else.
That's just the way I am.

FrankGol will have one last try and then give up.
If only!

Deakin said some non-whites could be honorary whites?
What an odd statement from an evil racist!
"Honorary" skin colour! Amazing!

The Boers and the KKK? Is this a chapter of Australian history I'm not familiar with, Professor?

Your thoughts were "nuanced" before, now they're "black and white".
So now there's only "one correct answer" to what "White Australia" meant?
Too simplistic for FrankGol, surely!

"What are you, Shockadelic, going to do with Indigenous Australians and other non-white Australians in your neo-White Australia?"

I, Shockadelic, didn't propose a neo-White Australia in the first place!

But, remember how the 1901 immigration law exempted resident migrants and didn't mention Aboriginals?
A contemporary law could do the same.

Hate to break it to you, but we live in a democracy.
Democracy is the people's government.
Not "you and your friends" government.
The government doesn't have to have "nuanced" policies; it needs to reflect the will of the people.

The majority of Australians have consistently voiced opposition to:
1 Massive immigration
2 Multicultural immigration
3 Massive multicultural immigration

I know your predictable response already: What if the "mob" are wrong?
What if the "mob" want to burn witches and own slaves?

If a democratic government wants to defy its own people, it should present its case and convince them.
Present the evidence, ethics, arguments.

If convinced, great!
If not, too bad for the goody-two-shoes government!

I repeat my question (precisely this time):
Why is the policy of massive multicultural immigration preferable to any other policy?

PRESENT YOUR CASE! (Capitals for emphasis)

The Age published a photo of jubilant Australians of an Iraqi origin with something like comment “Iraqis celebrate their team’s win in Asian Championship from Melbourne to (sorry, I'd forgotten)”.

NONSENSE!

However, even locally born and bread folks DO celebrate AUSTRALIAN after biologically historical.

That is a reaction on Anglo-racism – a pitiful situation for Muslim-reclaiming Western European/British outpost.

Hello? FrankGol, where are you?
It's been 3 and a half days now. You were commenting every day before (sometimes twice a day).

Maybe it's because every time you say something you shoot yourself in the foot, then put your foot in your mouth!
(Oh no, symbolic language overload!)

Do you have an case to support your opinion?
One would think with all the serious thought you've given the subject, you would have a prepared response (an actual argument, not character assassination) for dealing with fools who spout "crude drivel".

Or is it that you know deep inside there is an inherent illogicality to multicultural immigration, and as soon as you try to put an argument in words, I will detect any flaw and "pounce".
I'll rip it to shreds.

Maybe my question wasn't clear enough?
I'll try again, in the most precise wording I can think of:

Why is a large-quantity culturally-disparate culturally-indifferent migrant intake/selection policy more preferable than any other possible migrant intake/selection policy, for Australia today?

Is that precise enough?

And this question has nothing to do with migration that has already occurred, or with post-migration "integration" policy.

Present your case!
If you have one that can withstand scrutiny by the "master wordsmith".

Two weeks (so far, I presume it will be an eternity) since my request that FrankGol present a case *supporting* massive multicultural immigration.

The silence isn't golden, it's pathetic.

I should have known though. The "huff and puff" Big Bad Wolf routine intented to intimidate dissenters is so typical of shallow propagandists.

When presented with a real challenge they run away like scaredy-cats. And hope you won't notice their absence.

Can *anyone* help him out?
I can't believe, in a supposedly advanced intelligent society, that we should have a government policy accepting massive multicultural immigration, if there is *no supporting argument* for it!

Don't governments need to justify their choices?
If not, then they can do whatever they want, and criticisms of insane dictators would be totally invalid.
They rule, so shut up!

"We, the government, don't need to justify any of our laws or policies, so from now on, all lefthanded citizens can only eat chocolate icecream, never strawberry, and only on Wednesdays!"

Where is the case *for* massive multicultural immigration?
Or more precisely: Where is the case *for* a large-quantity culturally-disparate culturally-indifferent migrant intake/selection policy, for Australia today?

Anybody?

Shockadelic

I’m sorry you’ve missed me so much. I know I said on 2 August 2007: ‘One last try and then I give up.’

But I am sympathetic to your withdrawal symptoms - or is it dependency syndrome?

So in simple language let me say this:

1. Immigration policy is about who comes to settle in this country, from what origins and how many.

2. Multicultural policy is about the settlement process and the social interaction between ethnic groups within the Australian society (including the majority groups).

So it’s an illusory idea to ask for a case supporting what you call ‘massive multicultural immigration’.

But here’s what I’ll do for you, Shockadelic. I’ll tell you where you can read about the Government’s reasons for supporting mass immigration - and why they supported ‘multiculturalism’ until they changed the word to ‘integration’ this year.

On a website run by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship you’ll find more than 100 Fact Sheets.

http://www.immigration.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/index.htm

I recommend you read at least the following numbers (updates):
• 1. Immigration - the Background – (June 2007)
• 2. Key Facts in Immigration – (July 2007)
• 4. More than 60 Years of Post-war Migration – (January 2007)
• 6. The Evolution of Australia's Multicultural Policy – (June 2007)
• 7. "Diversity Works!": Australia's Competitive Advantage – (January 2007)
• 8. Abolition of the 'White Australia' Policy – (January 2007)

If you’re not happy with the Government’s justifications, I suggest you contact the PM and your local member (and/or vote against them in November).

I think it might be prudent to refrain from calling them ‘insane dictators’; but your line about ‘all lefthanded citizens can only eat chocolate icecream, never strawberry, and only on Wednesdays’ might appeal, especially if you recommend it come with GST attached.

Thanks for copying-and-pasting more government documents, FrankGol.
Don't even think of putting forth an argument in your own words.

I read them. I see a lot of "what", but not a lot of "why".

Strange, your quotes of earlier politicians are used to show they were "wrong", but *recent* politicians couldn't be wrong too?

The word multicultural means:
consisting of or relating to *more than one* culture.

Multi = more than one, cultural = cultural.
Understand?

I have also deliberately, repeatedly, defined *my* use of this word to mean "culturally-disparate".
This was "perfectly clear" in my *precise* question.

Integration (and Multicultural-ism) only concerns the *aftermath* of immigration, not the original selection criteria.

There are two main categories to the government's argument: social and economic.

Social:
There's no lack of women like in the 1860s, no destruction of almost an entire continent like after WWII.

The government's own documents show the natural increase (births/deaths) isn't declining but stable.
Our population size wouldn't decline without immigrants, it'd remain the same.

Growth? It's crowding and polluting the countries the immigrants are escaping from.
We don't want the same conditions here!

Emigrants? Half were originally immigrants!
The other half could be replaced with people from *similar* cultures.

Economic:
More people means more production, more consumption, more taxes, more services. Well, Duh!
That doesn't mean *per capita* wealth is increasing!

Past economic conditions are not today's conditions.
There's no gold rush, no need for camel handlers to explore the outback.
Manufacturing is moving offshore (ironically to India and China, sources of many immigrants!).

Today's market is idea-driven, online, computerised.
You don't need *more people* to produce more wealth under such market conditions.

The government claims its policies are "in the interests of the individual and society as a whole".

So did Torquemada, Vlad the Impaler, Robespierre and Hitler.
Stalin's "economically ideal" collectivisation of farming caused a famine which killed six million Russians.

No wonder I'm a *little suspicious* of people promoting "ideals" that will *improve* a society that never needed much improvement.

The PM didn't post comments here, you did.
Answer the question.

Shockadelic

I value my time. I haven't got any to waste on further remedial tutorials for you. Do your own reading.

But it's going to be hard for you if you continue to try to think with your mind shut.

Shockadelic- FrankGol’s exchange of messages in perfectly plain English allows two-cent intrusion by less proficient in playing words to admit, that profound greed of discriminating on mere biological grounds, those ripping off money from public in own pockets while substantiating public-paid accounts of mates-bureaucrats enjoying exemplified for “a free world” perks to a great extent based on a mere number of a cattle “being served”, grounds any “humanistic” migration policy of the geo-politically biggest xenophobic copy-cat of British racism in southern hemisphere.

"I grow weary of these tiresome filthy plebs. When will a plague come along and just wipe them out! Pass me another cucumber sandwich, darling"

I thought so. No answer.
No matter how precisely I word the question.
And not a single point of my last post addressed.
Sounds familiar?

Considering you were the most vicious opponent of the "anti" people, FrankGol, I mistakenly presumed you actually cared about the topic and would have something personal to say in defence of the "pro" position.

But I didn't bring the debate back to you, you did.
I'd given up on you.
I'd already thrown the ball to *anybody else* who could present an argument (their own, not someone else's).

In future, FrankGol, if you have nothing to contribute to a discussion, don't bother getting involved.

You can't just tinker arms-length with a topic like this, and then when you meet an opponent who can match (or better) you, wash your hands of it.

Some of us actually care about the future of our country.
If you don't care, then just shut up and leave the debate to people who do care, whatever their opinions!

Or if your really want to "better" our society, try writing your own "Mein Kampf", "Little Red Book" or "Unabomber Manifesto".
But then you'd probably get bored and throw your notes away before you finished.

Shame, I'd love to hear your Five Year Plan.
Who do we torture and kill first, Frank? Do tell.

Or seeing that you're so pro-migration, why not try it yourself and *get out* of my country!
I'm sure the tolerant people of the Middle East and Asia will accept you with open arms, you white devil!

I suggest everyone reread all of FrankGol's posts.
Has he contributed a single thought of his own?
Has he actually addressed any point raised?
I think we all know whose mind is shut here.

I repeat to *anybody except FrankGol*:

What is the case *for* a large-quantity culturally-disparate culturally-indifferent migrant intake/selection policy, for Australia today?

My mind is open to an answer, if it makes sense!

Shockadelic 1, FrankGol 0.