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.