Great and timely article, Tom. Pity about the typo, though :)

Now let the free-for-all begin...

Where is the typo and I'll fix it up. Thanks
Susan

>>there should be no full stop here, rather a coma..."

I thought it was deliberate, actually...

Here Susan: "But I think there should be no full stop here, rather a coma "

Cheers :)

Multiculturalism is a joke. It is a presumption that all things will remain the same and the “cultural identity” of people from diverse backgrounds will remain fixed and constant.

The reality is, whilst multiculturalism might pretend to be an immobile object, the unrelenting natural force of assimilation will eventually erode it to nothing.

Through progressive generations and generational intermixing / intermarriage, the resultant “Australian culture” will attribute some “differential” qualities to those of other nations but successive generations will tend toward more and more characteristics which we all hold in common.

A community of people can go one of two ways, either embracing assimilation or, to some extent, denying it.

The “anti-assimilation” community has a few classic examples, South Africa, Nazi Germany, the Southern States of USA.

As a denial of or obstacle to “assimilation”, “multiculturalism” shares some other “less-than-equitable” characteristics.

Characteristics commonly associated with racial purity, segregation and apartheid.
Community Divisions, based on intolerance demonstrate the dangers of “multiculturalism”.

Certain fundamentalist Muslim and “Exclusive” Christian sects being typical examples.
Inequitable governmental support for specific groups of people, based on their racial or religious or cultural origin, another.

Assimilation policies tend toward emphasizing and exemplifying the common characteristics expected from all Australians. A basic understanding of the language of Australia being a typical one. Which is essentially important for basic communication across ethnic or cultural lines and indispensable for understanding the laws we are commonly obliged to respect.

Re “Instability is caused not through a diversity of cultures and religions coming together, but when our relationships are governed by racial prejudice and religious intolerance.”

“Assimilation” will do far more to erode prejudice and intolerance than maintaining differences through “multiculturalism” ever will.

Multiculturalism is dead. Assimilation is what will now take place, as happened in the 19th Century. Australia was at its most multicultural just after the gold rushes, but by the nineteen-thirties (about 70 years later) it had been boiled down to a monoculture.

With this century likely to see the demise of secular humanism, and to be scarred by several religious wars that could cause as much damage as those of the seventeenth century, nations will only prosper and survive with a strong sense of national identity.

ONE NATION, ONE RACE, ONE CULTURE.... there..I said it again.

Dropping RACIST ideas about other people.. and ethnicities, and intermarrying with them will:

a) Enrich our own culture
b) Create a blended new 'Australian' identity of magnificent texture.

Multiculturalism.. "Its all about power"... and here is the deconstruction of that fact.

1/ Labor is supported by Migrants FAR more than the Coalition. (recent surveys in the media have shown this)

2/ You need to maintain a 'migrant' mentality in order to retain that support.. must create and US/them mentality, "Oh.. we migrants better stick together against the evil forces of the Coalition"

3/ By Reinforcing 'difference' and pandering to it, you have a greater chance of electoral victory.

MC is not quite dead.. any living tentacle of it is SEDITIOUS and dangerous.

In the end, bottom line, no matter what people say about 'tolerance' etc.. it's utter garbage.. lets get real..its about POWER... how to get it and keep it.

The Government could JUST as easily facilitate 'assimilation' and make its grants to 'assimilation related projects and community organizations'..... RATHER than 'difference emphasis and the nightmare of 'multi' culturalism.

Now this is where FrankGol (or is it Frank..God ? :) jumps in and tells us we don't really "understand" MC.. well.. unfortunately for that argument..I do, and what I know is that no matter how well meaning the POLICY is.. the PRACTICALITY is different..and that is where it matters for the future of this country.

What we need is not pious hopes and wishes, but solid research on the effects of immigration and "diversity."

See for example:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-25jl.html

Some quotes:

"Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam... is very nervous about releasing his new research, and understandably so. His five-year study shows that immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term influence on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities...."

"Putnam’s study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves. Trust, even for members of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer. The problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: 'In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down'—that is, to pull in like a turtle.'"

"Neither age nor disparities of wealth explain this result. 'Americans raised in the 1970s,' he writes, 'seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s.' And the 'hunkering down' occurred no matter whether the communities were relatively egalitarian or showed great differences in personal income. Even when communities are equally poor or rich, equally safe or crime-ridden, diversity correlates with less trust of neighbors, lower confidence in local politicians and news media, less charitable giving and volunteering, fewer close friends, and less happiness."

"Though Putnam is wary of what right-wing politicians might do with his findings, the data might give pause to those on the left, and in the center as well. If he's right, heavy immigration will inflict social deterioration for decades to come, harming immigrants as well as the native-born. Putnam is hopeful that eventually America will forge a new solidarity based on a “new, broader sense of we.” The problem is how to do that in an era of multiculturalism and disdain for assimilation."

The governments of liberal democratic societies have no business spending taxpayers' money promoting "multi-culturalism". People possess rights, culture and religion do not, we are under no obligation to respect or promote any culture or religion, only tolerate them, if they are compatible with democracy.

BOAZ_David

Your language gets more colourful every time you write about the seditious (sorry SEDITIOUS) not-quite-dead-yet tentacles of this dangerous marine creature of Multiculturalism. However, your logic and supporting evidence are no match for your metaphors.

For you, Multiculturalism is…“all about power”. And in support of your political science you offer this tripod of assertions.

(a) Migrants support Labor FAR more than the Coalition (nine out of ten fishermen prefer Hooko, the superior bait).
(b) Labor fools migrants into feeling they must “stick together against the evil forces of the Coalition”.
(c) Labor reinforces and panders to ‘difference’ and therefore has a greater chance of electoral victory.

David, if any of these propositions were true (and I don’t think you have any respectable empirical evidence for any of them), Honest John would be into it like a shot. Instead, he recently dropped the word ‘Multicultural’ from his reformed Immigration and Citizenship Department (but forgot to tell Multicultural Minister Kevin Andrews). Howard has been uneasy about Multiculturalism for much of his political life; and no-one has ever accused him of not being able to sniff the political wind (even coming from near-dead tentacles).

You maintain: “lets get real…its about POWER...how to get it and keep it.” That’s why the ALP has so dominated Federal politics since mass migration began post-WW2, eh David? Multiculturalism swept Labor to power and kept it there, eh David? Kevin Rudd mentions Multiculturalism about as often as he does Strip Joints these days.

David, you really should watch what you eat before going to bed. That ‘Frank..God’is giving you nightmares of 'multi' culturalism when all you want to do is dream of mixed marriages.

Now there’s a thought. Ring up Johnny, quick. He’s still looking for a white rabbit in his black hat. Special New Assimilation Grants (SNAGs). Money for Mixed Marriages (MMM, now there’s an election slogan). Double the SNAG for Christians marrying Muslims. Treble for Indigenous marrying Nordic types, eh David, triple M rated weddings?

I can just smell the POWER of it all.

C J Morgan: Here Susan: 'But I think there should be no full stop here, rather a coma'

Picky, picky, but time to wake from your 'coma'.

Commas are more usual in punctuation.

I could mount strong argument against this article, but it is not worth the time or effort. The debate is over MC is on the way to being an unfortuate episode in our history. During a similar thread some time back i predicted there would be more articles along such lines as those in the MC industry came to realise their cushy, well paid jobs may be no more. This is one such article.

The Government has finally realised the failings of MC. There are numberous examples of this, without even looking at the England and European situations. But never the less, we will see some die hards that cling to a hopeless ideology.

Tom would be well advised not to keep on about MC, as he won't win any friends in Canberra with it. He should talk to the Minister about a sideways shift to a new body set up the promote community integration, or rename his prsent body. If he has done a good job as chair he has nothing to lose and Director for Integration doesn't sound a bad title. By the way Kevin07 also says MC must go.

Frank... nothing personal mate :) just colorful as you say. But re 'evidence' Steven did our work for us.. any comment on it ?

Frank... John Howard's approach is akin to the republicans... they talk about 'border security' while their big agribusiness supporters say "Whoah their George.. 'look' tough, but don't stop our pipeline of cheap exploitable labor"..who then promptly vote DEMOCRAT :) who then talk about 'fair and just wages and conditions' etc..... its a blardy mess mate.

Steve
its good to have 'research' and scholarly opinion, but unfortunately, even though you have laid it out for all to see, 'bigotry' as in.."denial of well established fact through dogmatic rejection" is what you will now see unfolding from the MCnazis who simply don't 'like' the findings of such studies which conflict with their pet views. (and/or their political vested interests)

Hence...I take the other approach "Sledge Hammer and Headline"

You see.. the issue has never been about

-Common sense
-Clear evidence
-Self evident truths...

nope....

its been 'our way or the highway' (supported by the yapping puppies of the Racist anti Australian Ethnic Council of Australia)

But thanx anyway for simply proving that there is more than 'noise' at the root of the well justified 'anti' MC position.

DISCLAIMER
My interest is not in promoting a view which supports a particular party, I'm on the record many times of having an independant vision for Australia no matter who is in power, MC is just plain stupid whichever way you look at it.

Regarding the 17th century type race wars you forecast for the future world, Plerdus. Is not the big one on already with Islamic terrorism on one side and Christian unipolar Americana and us on the other side.

Furthermore, with a collossal US nuclear arsenal to back us up, really no need to ask who's going to win?

But wait a tick, we forget that Putin of Russia looks like he's gone Soviet socialist again, and he's even joined Communist China already in war games, possibly practising for the coming event. Looks like Iran could be interested too in making a threesome.

The never you know, this might be the way to stop wars like you were talking about, never starting.

What's called power balancing, or multi-polar marshalling of major powers to prevent war.

Might be a good thing, Plerdus, for right now, all the arming is on one side, which was never a good thing, anyhow, as Immanuel Kant gave voice in that 17th century you mentioned.

Culturally speaking one can not be multi-cultural. So there is no practice of multi-culture. It's people of diverse cultures practicing their own individual culture. Not practicing multi-culture. Multiculturalism = multi-tribal
Tribes compete.
Tribal competition = strife
Multiculturalism = strife
Cultural/tribal strife keeps the masses off balance and no coherent government becomes necessary. Governing party's are elected by a smaller and smaller minority of the voting public. A healthy government elected by 60% of the electorate becomes bad government elected by 30% of the electorate.
Multiculturalism is the best thing to hit politics since the female vote. Sex split the vote in twain. Culture splits the vote a hundred times.
Call it oligarchy but, more like a plutocracy since the wealthy will make any determination. Any rate it ain't democracy. It's democracy like. The social[ist] engineers have decided that democracy was too much of a burden to place on the citizenry. Multiculturalism sounds like more and democracy requires attention. lets all go out for chinese and experience the boon of multiculturalism. Wheeeeee!

Multi culture,multi tribal,multi ghettoism, we had none of that before, we simply had Australia and Australians and it WORKED.
Now we have ethnic riots,ethnic gangs, ethnic terrorists and enough Political Correctness to gag a continent with.
Be done with this stupidity for all time becuse this so called multiculture that has been a curse on all the Western countries on which it has been forced just does not work.

bushbred,

I did not forecast race wars this century, I forecast religious wars.
The two are very different. In the seventeenth century europe was wracked by religious wars, between catholic and protestant, engaged in by people of the same race.

I think you are right, however, that we are at present in the first one between christian America and militant Islam. Many non-religious people in the west, mostly on the left, are still into the rich-poor thing that has nothing to do with the current war, as evidenced by the attempted terrorist attack by affluent doctors in the UK. I really don't know how the secular left is going to handle this, as it contradicts many of their beliefs.

The trouble is that the old left is way behind the current world situation, what with the never-to-be-developed third world, and the end of cheap oil, which means that the standard of living of everyone will have to be substantially reduced.

Stand by for an explosion in religious enthusiasm as this all happens.

The main cause of these wars will be the problem of resource depletion, and the need to have a little war to see who gets the all the remaining resources and who gets nothing.

The tide has been turning for the last few years now. Before that not a word could be said against MC without being branded a racist. I believe now the truth is coming out. As more and more ordinary people begin to speak their minds about what a failure it has been. I still remember seeing Geoffrey Blamey being harrassed for speaking the truth.
It's nothing more than foreign people coming here exploiting Australia and bringing their backward cultures with them.
For years I've seen pro MC turalists hounding people, brainwashing them, and everyone is too scared to speak up against it. For the last few years I've known that this will end soon, and all I hope is that those who have been so aggressive in their views and dismissive of others will be held accountable for the destruction they have caused.
Most of the Pro MC turalists are of foreign extraction who couldn't care less what happens to Australia. One day in the next 40 years we will be deporting them back to where they belong. Fix your own countries up instead of bludging off Australia.

its edifying to see the mono culturalists still trying to work out why they don't fit in anywhere..LOL

Those who are selectively using Putnam's research to support their anti-MC views should pay heed to his conclusion:

"successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities."

In other words - in the short term, some people are uncomfortable with living alongside others from different cultures; but in the longer-term we wind up with a richer and stronger culture through diversity.

It is exactly those new cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities that many of us value so highly in Australia’s successful multi-cultural society. In comparison, monocultures are boring, sterile, inflexible and insular.

Rhian

I read a book on Happiness last year "Happiness, lessons from a new science". In there was reference to research which demonstrated that in most countries which had been surveyed the majority of people wanted to live in a homogeneous society as opposed to a multicultural one. There was no country where the majority wished for a multicultural one.

The policy of the Howard Govt re funding religion based new schools is fostering and encouraging multi-culturalism, another word for which is separitism-v- assimilation. It took us Catholics until, I think, about 1966, some 150 years, to get any funding for our schools - and then Menzies gave us some money for science labs. Prior to that we Catholics paid for construction and instruction.

The Orthodox went to Greek School after school hours and the Protestants went to Sunday School and we went to mass - but our hours were longer than State Schools.

There is only one way for Australia to remain a nation committed to the ideals of separation of religion and government, and that is for the Federal Government to lead the way in supporting our great egalitarian State School system (and its now proven integrated Catholic school adjunct) with its emphasis on citizenship. With religious instruction for all the various faiths under the direction of the parents - after hours or bring back Sunday School.

BOAZ_David:

"... nothing personal mate," you say, but since I have views you disagree with, I'm a 'MCnazi'. Nothing personal David; it's just a power game for you.

And while having the temerity to ask me what I think about Steven's 'evidence' (i.e. selective quotes from one article) you then boast about your preferred approach - "Sledge Hammer and Headline".

The issue for you, in your words has never been about "Common sense, Clear evidence or Self evident truths..." For you, the issue is "our way or the highway".

In other words, you are not interested in the truth or reasoning or ethical argument. It's just a matter of who's got the biggest weapon and the loudest voice, then.

What are you doing on OLO? It's much too intellectual and sensitive for you, David. I can think of other blogs that would suit your philosophy much better. Why don't you take your knuckle dusters and big lungs over there?

Few Australians object to anyone coming here and integrating into society. What many object to (as seen by the 1 million who voted for Pauline) is for immigrants to bring their own countries problems and reproduce them here. It is amazing how silent many feminist are when it comes to the appalling treatment of women by Muslims. Most Australians want selective immigration (not on the basis of colour) but on the basis of some common values (ie freedom of religion or non religion). Just wait for the next outbreak in the Middle East and see how many who have returned home while still collecting welfare and will demand our Government rescue them. How dumb are we?

Major source countries of migrants:

July 2005 to June 2006 settler arrivals, by country of birth

United Kingdom 23 300 17.7%

New Zealand 19 000 14.4%

China (excludes SARs and Taiwan Province ) 10 600 8.0%

India 11 300 8.6%

Sudan 3800 2.9%

South Africa 4000 3.0%

Philippines 4900 3.7%

Singapore 2700 2.0%

Malaysia 3000 2.2%

Sri Lanka 2400 1.8%

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/02key.htm#c

My respects;- FrankGol and Rhian. Very much so; because I'm not going to spend the time and energy on stating the obvious. Bravo to you!

The major problem with multiculturalism isn’t the fact that foreigners are migrating to our country. The problem is ‘multiculturalism’ as a policy encourages these people to develop their lives separately from the rest of the community. It creates ghettoes.

Until recently people who support assimilation have been labelled as racists. I do not care what race or colour a person is if they want to become Aussies. I think these people should be encouraged to come to Australia.

One of the basic tenets of multiculturalism is that all cultures, and therefore all cultural practices, are equally valid. One spin-off of this idea has been the self determination debacle for aborigines. This has been an appalling disaster.

I have a problem with people who want to come to Australia but aren’t prepared to integrate themselves into our way of life. For example, there is no place for people who think women are second class citizens. Or for migrants who don’t want their children to be associated with Australian children.

I accept that what it is to be Australian is a changing concept. However there are some immutable characteristics. For starters, speaking English fluently should be a goal all migrants work towards.

In short, a migrant who wants to live in Australia should be comfortable with Australian values and be prepared to embrace them. Anyone who thinks the west is decadent and cannot abide our values should look for their new home elsewhere.

Bushbred,

Your irresponsible support for a stronger counterbalance to the US in the form of the three autocratic states, China, Russia and Iran is astounding in its naivete. How can you honestly think the world would be a safer place if these three had more power? If Iran had more power they would attack Israel directly, rather than just showering Hezbollah in funds. A powerful Iran would also scare the bejus out of the sunni nations in the region. It would be a recipe for disaster.

I won’t even mention the problems this could cause Taiwan and South Korean.

Col Rouge

I agree and disagree with you.

Multiculturalism will disappear in time when our culture changes and stabilizes, but not for now. We are too cosmopolitan at the moment.

And when you ask for assimilation I ask you, to what. Are we all to become aborigines, or Irish, or English, what? With a melting pot some core values will change new ones emerge some disappear. Historically tolerance was not exactly one of the traditional values.

At the moment I argue that multiculturalism at its best asks for tolerance and sharing. I would like it to develop like that. To stick to Anglo Australian Christian values would be too limiting and deny us of what we could have.

Cornflower: "Picky, picky, but time to wake from your 'coma'.

Commas are more usual in punctuation."

Er, that's precisely why I pointed out that "coma" was obviously a typo. Clearly, in the context of the sentence he meant to write "comma". In your haste to score a snarky point, you obviously missed both the sense of the sentence and of the typo. Did you actually read the article?

As I predicted, this article has brought many of our resident wingnuts out from under their rocks. Such unhappy people, living in arguably the most dynamic and rich society on the planet.

Oh well, at least they've got Pauline to vote for again (if they live in the right State).

NO TABBOULEH!

Reluctant as I am to join the free-for-all, I nevertheless shall.

I recall Paul Hogan, as his alter-ego 'Hoges', once making the observation in an interview that in all the world, the two places to which people from all over strove to go TO, as opposed to get away from, were the USA and Australia. (His observation probably does not do justice to Canada, New Zealand, or the UK, but let's not split hairs; it was 'Hoges' after all.) Given this, I asked myself why this might be so. I have also asked various people who have migrated here, both directly and indirectly, why they chose Australia as a new home, including some once Iraqui, now Australian, (yes, Islamic) friends.

Apart from, in some cases, very simple reasons like being executed if they returned to the land of their birth, it seems a lot of the reasons for choosing Australia revolved around an ability to trust in the continued rule of a corpus of law the nature of which was fairly well understood in advance of migration, in anticipated circumstances of long term political and economic stability. The sort of place where you could build a family and a future without being shot at or caught in a crossfire.

How could they have been so confident in, and in outline knowledgeable of, that corpus of law? The general answer, variously expressed, was that our law was essentially British law, and that there had been hundreds of years of most recent history during which that law in operation, and the society it moulded, could be observed, and that they had observed its history and migrated accordingly. The climate and the laid back lifestyle were but a bonus.

Most of these newer Australians are astounded, perplexed, and appalled at seeing, under 'Multiculturalism' the major cultural component of the population in the country they chose for their family's future security being 'dissed' and robbed of its identity. Most Australians are British, they say, and yet, for some strange reason, are not officially permitted to be recognised as such!

It's disappointing to see many commenters here blaming the solution. StephenLMeyer, it's not just disappointing but *amusing* that you quote so selectively from the linked article. For example:

"... in the long run, increased immigration and diversity are inevitable and desirable, and successful immigrant societies 'dampen the negative effects of diversity' by constructing new identities."

Australia has already proved very good at "dampening" whatever negative effects diversity has. The question is about any recent failure to achieve it in the short run.

I believe it is necessary, if "social capital" isn't going to appear spontaneously in a country with high immigration and a diverse population, for public policy to help it along.

That social capital can be built through policies of "assimilation", nominally reducing differences, or "multiculturalism", which nominally celebrates diversity. But these two objectives are neither opposed nor even incompatible. I think that what Australia's assimilationist policies achieved in the years before Fraser *is* multiculturalism, and I think that what multicultural policies have achieved since is even more constructive.

Sure, there are problems. Accept people countries torn by war and demagoguery and yes, you import some of their troubles. This would be *worse* without a public policy of community-building, and it is exacerbated by a few people scapegoating one minority or another, or diversity itself (ha!), instead of just behaving like good neighbours.

For commenters here to adduce gangs and riots as a problem with public policy or with ethnic diversity is sorely mistaken. The gangs are criminals and we've *always* had those: the "criminal element" was once supposedly all-Irish!

The Cronulla riot was a consequence not of diversity but of opportunistic scapegoating on the part of our respected PM's pet radio shock jocks.

Hilaly, Hansen, Devine and Jones are of a kind: "just saying what we're all thinking": that the victims of our crimes are to blame for their own misfortune, and that our own situation is threatened by our neighbours.

It's classic scapegoating. We don't all think that, and it's not on.

When a respected leader drives a wedge, he creates a space where extremism looks normal.

Xoddam

Putnam expresses some pious hopes amounting to "she'll be right" which you quote.

Perhaps the most devastating passage in the whole article reads as follows:

"...Social psychologists have long favored the optimistic hypothesis that contact between different ethnic and racial groups increases tolerance and social solidarity. For instance, white soldiers assigned to units with black soldiers after World War II were more relaxed about desegregation of the army than were soldiers in all-white units. But Putnam acknowledges that most empirical studies do not support the "contact hypothesis." In general, they find that THE MORE PEOPLE ARE BROUGHT INTO CONTACT WITH THOSE OF ANOTHER RACE OR ETHNICITY, THE MORE THEY STICK TO THEIR OWN, AND THE LESS THEY TRUST OTHERS. Putnam writes: "Across local areas in the United States, Australia, Sweden Canada and Britain, greater ethnic diversity is associated with lower social trust and, at least in some cases, lower investment in public goods." (Emphasis added)

I'm not saying this is good. In fact, I think it's APPALLING. But we don't tackle the problems associated with diversity by pretending they don't exist.

And, no, we cannot guilt people into behaving differently. All we can do is guilt them into hiding their true feelings. Feelings which will emerge at the ballot box.

I don't have any solutions. But this much I do know. Multi-culti – which amounts to segregating people into ethnic and religious ghettoes, is PART OF THE PROBLEM, not part of the solution.

We also should drop the pretence that all cultures are compatible with liberal Australian democracy when plainly they are not.

It is curious, if we look outside this Commonwealth (of Australia) at the wider British Commonwealth of Nations (you know, the ghost of the old British Empire), which is most assuredly not predominantly Anglo-Celtic in a racial sense, to see how much of British imperial symbolism and legal and administrative heritage is not merely retained, but positively clung to, in these now long independent and distinctly different countries. It must have been a dreadful empire! Just as well none of it rubbed off on us!

Even more interesting that the former Portuguese African colony, Mozambique, which was never part of the British Empire while it existed, has in recent years joined the British Commonwealth! The fatal attraction of that dreadful British heritage, one can only assume.

The fact is, all Australians have been lied to by a long succession of unperceiving politicians who have themselves been duped into repudiating their own heritage and descent.

I was born in Australia. My father was born in Australia, and his father before him. None of us ever lived anywhere but Australia all our lives, but not one of us were or are anything other than British subjects. There is, and never has been, any such thing as 'an Australian citizen'! Twice the Commonwealth Parliament has propounded this falsehood: in 1948 and 1973; but in neither case is the legislation consistent with the necessary implications of Section 44 of the Constitution. See this link to a post to the topic "The Nature of Australian Citizenship": http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5275#65639 . Mr Justice Kirby, heads up!

How dare this cavalcade of predominantly native-born unperceivers mask my true status of British subject resident in Australia! How dare they deceive those who have migrated into believing they have any status other than that of either alien, or, if they have sworn at naturalization the same oath as prescribed in the Constitution for our parliamentarians, British subject resident in Australia.

Recommitting to Multiculturalism? Best of British luck! Instead we should be committing to a study and celebration of our British heritage.

FRANK...... the point is... not that I dismiss 'thoughtful investigation and evidence' but that when confronted WITH such evidence, the MC crowd just ignore it and dismiss IT.... and go back to what they were doing.

So I am saying that MC supporters do so in SPITE of evidence to the contrary, so what then is the point of presenting evidence after a certain point ?

There IS evidence for MC being a misguided, unhelpful practice, but it is ignored.. just like the evidence and personal testimony of the PILOT who flew the plane to Syria moving Sadaams WMD that now every leftoid claims never existed.

The issue is not 'evidence' but attitude TO that evidence.

So... when evidence is trampled on..we are left with the 'sledge hammer and headline' :) ....get it now ?

Again... I didn't mean to sound rude toward you, just being my usual colorful self.

Culture is an ever evolving factor of mankind. Some cultures are focussing on social aspects, others on religion & some on social engineering. All have one thing in common. They all have some degree of fanaticism. Great cultures have come & gone because of this. Why ? I can't be totally sure but I believe that whenever a culture was borne of the success of a successful (so-called) civilisation, the infiltration of another group/society invariably spelled the decline of the host society. We have had multiculturalism for several centuries now but we haven't found the right formula yet to develop a culture of multiculture.

Oh Forrest Gumpp, I hate to burst your bubble. You may regard yourself a British subject, but Great Britain certainly doesn't. You are a foreign national there. As foreign as somebody from Burkina Faso say, or Peru.

Ask any Australian citizen who has tried to live there or work there. You have to jump through the same hoops as a citizen from the previously mentioned nations.

Nobody migrates to Australia to become a 'British' subject. To do that they go to an island off the coast of Europe.

I do not understand why there is this persistent notion that multiculturalism is about hanging on to your previous culture. Or that is against integration. Integration is inevitable. With each successive generation. Multiculturalism is not about denying Anglo saxon heritage.

On applying for citizenship it should be mandatory to learn English and about how our particular system of government, the Westminster system works. Unfortunately, it will mean that new Australians will understand and know more about how their particular type of democracy works than Australians born here.

On a last note. The ABS published figures, which show that new migrants and their children are on average more successful educationally, job wise and financially. I wonder if maybe they hung on to some of their 'old' values and see education as a worthy pursuit?? The long weekend, obsession with watching others play sport and laid back attitude not quite so entrenched yet.

“showing respect for each other’s culture, religion and race is a core universal value.

What facts do you base this statement on Frank Calma? Did a big finger write this in the sky or something?

Any long term observation of this world shows exactly the opposite. Showing respect for ones own culture, religion and race while having ambivalence or disdain for that of others is the norm.

This assertion is just wishful fantasy on your part. Would that it was true what a wonderful world it would be. But it isn’t true.

Yvonne said,
"I do not understand why there has been this persistant notion that multiculture is about hanging onto your previous culture. Or that it is against integration. Integration is inevitable. With each successive generation. Multiculture is not about denying Anglo saxon heritage."

This is not a notion. It is the way MC has been in practice. It may not be what was intended, but the way MC has pushed foreign national feelings has divided our community along nationalistic lines. Each national group vieing to be top dog and trying to get a larger slice of the government financial handout so as to promote their foreign nationality. This has relegated Aussie culture to that of almost non existance in some quaters.

MC has not given us 'unity in diversity'. For example, even after 2 or 3 generations here the Croats and Serbs still have violent clashes over things a century old. Other groups show hatred for other groups. Sunni and Shia Iraqis clashed at Auburn with cars and shops damaged and 2 people shot. Later shots were fired into many buildings. Leb muslims, again after 2-3 generations, get on with no one and it was the attempted Leb dominance at Cronulla beach that caused the 'so called' riot and the aftermarth. Don't forget the 60 racialy motivated gang rapes and the utter contempt shown to our courts when some were brought to account. Government may be slow to act, but you can bet ASIO has reams of reports on the above matters and more.

Obviously, changes are needed to promote community harmony and that is by way of integration and the promotion of the fact that citizens are Australian firstly. No one expects people to forget or discard their heritage but it will be the feeling that, irrespective, we are all Australian that will be the bond that joins us together.

Sadly, MC has failed to do this and is now being dismantled.

Forrest Gumpp

You want to hang on to your British culture, and as a multiculturalist I agree with you. But why should non-Anglos not be allowed to hang on to theirs?

Our oldest and most distinctive heritage is that of the Aborigines, should we all adopt their culture? If not why should we adopt that of Johnny come latelys like yours? And where do you place the Irish Catholic culture? Or the Jewish? They all arrived together on the First Fleet and each contributed in their own way. If the Jews had adopted the British views on education we would not have had so many intellectuals, or if we had all adopted British cuisine we would not have a great wine industry, or for that matter many tourists.

Muticulturalism does not have to mean separation, it means hanging on to what is good in your own culture and sharing it with others, so that we are all enriched.

Mr Calma has a fair point in saying is that we all should show respect for each other’s culture, religion and race.

If that is what multiculturalism is all about, plus sampling one another's food, fair enough.

Of course the problem is what happens when the cultures clash, as it it has done from time to time, and most recently and arguably most dangerously with the arrival of Muslims and their religion which is more than just a religion but also a political ideology.

There are tough issues here that will not be satisfied by sweet talk.

Until these issues are addressed and we have some answers I would go slow on talk of multiculturalism because as this thread demonstrates it is a devisive issue at this point in time.

Yvonne,
You said “I do not understand why there is this persistent notion that multiculturalism is about hanging on to your previous culture. Or that is against integration”

Multiculturalism replaced assimilation as the dominant policy for dealing with migrants. As self determination did for the aborigines. Two colossal failures. Of the countries with large ethnic minorities, almost all are having trouble. Britain, after opening its arms to migrants from all corners of the earth, now finds itself under attack by some of these very same people.

Assimilation had, as it basis, the idea that all Australians should eventually be indistinguishable. That is, everyone would in the end integrate.

Multiculturalism has given new migrants the permission not to attempt to integrate. Why would they when we tell them that their culture belongs here as much as ours does.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not anti-immigration at all. I don’t care what race, colour creed etc migrants are if they want to become Aussies. But migrants should want to be a part of our communities and not form ghettoes where they are isolated from the rest of us.

Your statements about Australia show that you are another of the ‘cultural cringe’ brigade who think that Australians are ‘uncultured’ yobs. How about you provide some evidence for this yvonee because I think its absolute bullsh#t. Its out and out bigotry in my opinion.

In fact its surprising that you haven’t emigrated to your favourite ‘cultured’ nation and left us in peace.

By the way, regarding the success of migrants, did it ever occur to you Yvonne that we are only selecting people for migration who are highly skilled and highly motivated.

David Palmer: "If that is what multiculturalism is all about, plus sampling one another's food, fair enough."

What a wonderfully Presbyterian view of multiculturalism. I note you don't mention dancing.

Just what we need - a Calvinist wingnut perspective. As if Brother Boazy et al weren't enough.

Logic,
What do you do when some ethnic groups want to hang onto the bad things (in our eyes) that comes with their culture. Things like oppression of women, child brides, pedophillia, FGM, the caste system, hatred, arrogance and contempt for other cultures, cock fighting, etc. What does the idealistic MC love in do about those types of issues. It simply ignores them and pretends they don't exist. We live in a real world and they do exist.

David Palmer,
"Mr Calma has a point in that we all should show respect for each other's culture, religion and race".
Of course we should, in fact Australians have been, in the main, very understanding and tolerant in this regard, but some ethnic groups are not. See reply to Logic above. Some ethnic groups are racist as shown in their hatred for others and in not allowing their children to intermarry.

I agree that these are tough issues and they have to be addressed.

yvonne,

Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but your response to Forrest Gumpp on the status of Australians in the UK is simply not correct.

Australians are not regarded as aliens in the UK. Provided they are resident there, they can vote and stand for Parliament, whereas aliens, even those from the european community, and particularly from Burkina Faso or Peru, who are resident there, cannot. The same applies to all other commonwealth countries who have the Queen as their head of state.

The only restrictions on Australians relate to entering and working in the country. Similar restrictions apply to UK citizens here, but they cannot vote here unless they were on the roll prior to 1983.

The civilizational struggle that the west is engaged in with militant Islam, which looks as if it will endure for much of this century, will serve to strengthen the basic instinct of territoriality, which is older than mankind and will prevail when the current internationalism is a forgotten footnote of history.

Multiculturalism is balkanization with lip gloss. Rather than uniting us, this divisive ideology has eroded our sense of nationhood. It has diluted our national identity and transformed us into a hodgepodge of hyphenated citizens with nothing in common. No nation interested in self-preservation would bother with multiculturalism.

It's odd that in "multicultural Australia", the one cultural attachment no one can publicly acknowledge is the one that has shaped Australia the most. After Britain itself, Australia is still the most British country in the world. But rather than celebrating our predominately Anglo-Celtic heritage, we are told that Australia has always been 'multicultural', as if to say that this silly Canadian-devised ideology has been an integral part of Australia's development since federation.

We don't need to be multicultural, we need to be Australian. And yes, that means overcoming our cultural and historical amnesia, and recognizing that people from the British Isles played the dominant role in building and shaping modern Australia.

Quote: What these commentators fail to point out however, is that showing respect for each other’s culture, religion and race is a core universal value and fundamental to our democratic principles. Universal whether in Australia, London or Hanoi.

Does "showing respect" include certain immigrants respecting our culture? Or is it a one-way street where people must respect immigrants but immigrants need not respect others?

Does it include respecting gentital mutilation, forced marriages and honor killings? Does it include respecting Muslims right to kill apostates, as a Muslim group in Canada proposed? Does it include the right to silence the speech of citizens if that speech upsets certain immigrants? I doubt that the "religious intolerance" he refers to has anything to do with the hate that Islam preaches toward non-Muslims. No, it is us because we dare take note of it and condemn it - that is what Calma considers "intolerance'. Pathetic.

I notice that the author mentions Australia, London or Hanoi. I doubt that multiculturalism or democracy is a big issue in Vietnam. I know that in London there is a group of people that preaches hate and violence, and once in a while people from that group go out to kill others because they are 'the other.' Perhaps Mr. Calma should redirect his efforts to explaining that "respect" thing to this group. I also notice that he does not mention cities like Mecca, Cairo, Teharan, Damascus, etc... as places where "core values" would benefit from democratic principals or multiculturalism.

You will notice that Mr Calma also dos not specifically call upon immigrants to respect our values. Like I said, a one way street. These same people, the multiculturalists, would condemn us in a minute if we went to other countries and didnt heed local laws and customs, yet have no problem in condemning us when we ask that immigrants respect our customs.

Bigoted people like Mr Calma only care about themselves and their own "feel-good' egos. Pathetic. They add fuel to the fire and when it explodes they blame everybody but themselves and those that lit the match.

Kactuz

CJ and the IDEOLOGICAL POLICE... wow CJ, I see you are apparently keeping a comprehensive dossier on we Christian nutters ? :)

You don't need to refer to Davids theological background 'Calvinist' in connection with Multiculturalism ... thats getting a bit errr.. u know.

Yvonne said:

"I do not understand why there is this persistent notion that multiculturalism is about hanging on to your previous culture. Or that is against integration. Integration is inevitable"

Hooray.. so Yvonne.. if that's the case, lest simply lose the word 'Multi' and change the focus of our policies to REFLECT that fact and FACILITATE it :).. duh..its not realllly that hard,...like

a) It is inevitable.
b) Lets assist it.

David Palmer brings out the CRITICAL point about respecting cultures.
(which has less than ZERO to do with any Calvinistic/Presbyterian background) and that is....where they CLASH!

For example.. a Japanese man usually 'bows' when greeting someone, and they depth of the bow depends on the status of the other person.. well here in Australia, we SHAKE HANDS... i.e.. 'CLASH' but not a serious one of course.

"Women are worth half that of a man"(in court) aah..now there is a much bigger clash.. if a Muslim man is taken to court, on the accusation of a woman, he is likely to reject what she says because of her intrinsic 'half value' in court. So, in this case Australian culture and law must prevail.

So... policy should reflect the need to EDUCATE migrants on this matters and inform them of it before they arrive and after.

This is soooo simple.. I don't know why people resist it. OOps.. now I remember. "power"
-keep them separate.
-Build up their sense of 'difference/migrant'
-Keep them voting left.

Yep..Now I get it.

Plerdsus, whom I thank for his amplifying remarks in the 44th post in this thread, has illuminated an interesting example of 'Multiculturalism' at work in its true anti-British culture role.

Plerdsus says: "The only [UK] restrictions on Australians relate to entering and working in the country. Similar restrictions apply to UK citizens here, but they cannot vote here unless they were on the roll prior to 1983."

In the light of the neccessary implication of Section 44 of the Constitution (see the link in my second post), a section unaltered since Federation, how can the legislation that disfranchises permanently resident British (UK) subjects who were not on an Australian electoral roll as at 25 January 1984 be constitutional?

How many British subjects who linguistically, and in every other way, fit instantly and indistinguishably into the cultural fabric of Australia are denied this basic civil right to vote as a consequence of that (unconstitutional?) 1983 legislation? Does anybody know?

There may be a very sinister aspect to this disfranchisement of the British citizens. If you go to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/subs.htm you will see a list of submissions to this Parliamentary Inquiry. If you then click on submission no. 123 (a 1.3 Mb PDF), open it and go to page 44 of the PDF (page 43 of the submission), you will see a section headed "Row 100 The Conditional Disfranchisement of the British Citizens". It makes for very interesting reading! I wonder how many members of that Parliamentary Committee have actually read and understood it!

On checking this reference, I see the author of the submission has answered my question as to how many may have been disfranchised. He indicates that as at 1986, around 60,000 such persons in Western Australia alone were robbed of this basic right. If I read him correctly, maybe as many as ONE MILLION Australia-wide!

And if I get the drift of the submission correctly, this possible million disfranchisements may be being used as cover for as many virtually undetectable fraudulent electoral enrolments!

I repudiate altogether the idea that multiculturalism does anything to denigrate Australia's British cultural heritage and legal system.

Multiculturalism never settled foreigners in ghettoes and gave them citizens' rights whilst letting them behave as though they lived elsewhere. No suburb is dominated by one non-Anglo culture; these "ghettoes" are imaginary scapegoats.

Assimilation was an illiberal policy of conformity which produced a vibrant multicultural society. Imposition failed, so we stopped trying. A little before that we also started accepting dark-skinned non-Europeans -- perhaps this is your real objection?

Multiculturalism is about being a gracious, liberal host.

Forrest Gump, plerdsus: you're *both* wrong re. UK voting and citizenship law.

*All* Commonwealth countries have had *citizens* since 1949. "British subject" lost its traditional meaning in UK law in 1981 ("Commonwealth citizen" replaced it) and now means something rather peculiar. The term disappeared from Australian law in 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law

Citizens of any Commonwealth or European Union country may vote in UK elections if they are legally resident in the UK.

Before 1983, any rights Australia accorded to "British subjects" likewise applied to all Commonwealth citizens, whether from Pakistan, Uganda or Scotland.

StevenLMeyer says "We also should drop the pretence that all cultures are compatible with liberal Australian democracy when plainly they are not."

This interpretation of "culture" is inconsistent with any sensible notion of multiculturalism.

There are *ideologies* that are incompatible with liberal Australian democracy, but we've always had those. I believe there is no *culture* which cannot successfully be integrated into a secular liberal polity. Remember the English once fought a bitter religious civil war.

Just as banning the Communist Party of Australia was inconsistent with our liberal democracy -- no matter how incompatible its Stalinism was with liberal democracy itself -- so too would be the suppression of illiberal "cultural" ideologies like Christian Dominionism. Theocratic ideologies are more dangerous in Parliament than in the mosque!

Secular liberalism cannot defend itself from such authoritarian threats by setting up defensive thought police. Being superior in its own right is the only defence. It worked against the Stalinists, why not against the theocrats?

"Forrest Gumpp

You want to hang on to your British culture, and as a multiculturalist I agree with you. But why should non-Anglos not be allowed to hang on to theirs?

Our oldest and most distinctive heritage is that of the Aborigines, should we all adopt their culture? If not why should we adopt that of Johnny come latelys like yours? And where do you place the Irish Catholic culture? Or the Jewish? They all arrived together on the First Fleet and each contributed in their own way. If the Jews had adopted the British views on education we would not have had so many intellectuals, or if we had all adopted British cuisine we would not have a great wine industry, or for that matter many tourists.

Muticulturalism does not have to mean separation, it means hanging on to what is good in your own culture and sharing it with others, so that we are all enriched.
Posted by logic, Thursday, 23 August 2007 9:38:04 PM"

VERY WELL PUT LOGIC!

Xoddam wrote:

>I believe there is no *culture* which cannot successfully be integrated into a secular liberal polity.>

Your belief is drivel. There is no other way to put it. There are cultures that deny women access to education, enforce arranged marriages, do not permit freedom of religion or speech, kill gays and so on. By definition such cultures cannot be "integrated into a secular liberal polity." At least not into a 21st century secular liberal polity.

You are also wrong to deny a link between culture and ideology. In some cultures ideology, culture and religion are inextricably linked. I happen to belong to one such culture and am very aware of the connections.

Xoddam wrote:

>This interpretation of "culture" is inconsistent with any sensible notion of multiculturalism.>

What interpretation? So far as I can see multiculturalism IN PRACTICE means trying to keep people in cultural, not necessarily physical, ghettoes. In effect MC does impose a culture.

I have to agree with the left wing commentator, Terry Lane. The best position is "TOLERANT MONO-CULTURALISM." This amounts to saying you can follow your own culture but where there is a clash with the mainstream culture, it's the mainstream that prevails so you cannot force your daughter to marry her cousin.

There is no pretence that the mainstream culture is static. It will evolve as all cultures should. (One of the problems with MC is that it helps FREEZE CULTURES)

Xoddam, none of this addresses the issue that too much "diversity" does seem to DESTROY SOCIAL CAPITAL. That is a very SERIOUS ISSUE. You cannot wish it away. Putnam's research merely confirms what other researchers have already found.

But Putnam's research weight because he was trying to prove the opposite of what he found. Despite putting a positive spin on his findings he was at honest enough to publish them.

Xoddam you need to quit thinking that something must be so because you "believe" it. Rather look at the CRUEL facts.

The fact that you "believe" any culture is compatible with a (21st century) secular liberal polity does not make it so.

Congratulations CJ Morgan for being able to tie Presbyterian and Calvinist together and I myself am proud to be called a Calvinist. There's a bit of multiculturalism for you to meet and celebrate CJ!

Come to any number of Presbyterian (Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, etc, etc) congregations in the 'burbs and you will see real live multiculturalism at work across multiple ethnic groups and all under the Christian banner.

Kwame Appiah ( N.Y. Times) in an interesting article, refers to culture, globalization and authenticity in culture where trying to find some primordially authentic culture, can be like peeling an onion. Cultures are made of continuities and changes, and the identity of a society can survive through these changes. Societies without change aren't authentic; they're just dead.

The textiles most people think of as traditional West African cloths are known as Java prints; they arrived in the 19th century with the Javanese batiks sold, and often milled, by the Dutch. The traditional garb of Herero women in Namibia derives from the attire of 19th-century German missionaries, though it is still unmistakably Herero, not least because the fabrics used have a distinctly un-Lutheran range of colors.

Salman Rushdie, who has insisted that the novel that occasioned his fatwa "celebrates hybridity, impurity, intermingling, the transformation that comes of new and unexpected combinations of human beings, cultures, ideas, politics, movies, songs. It rejoices in mongrelisation and fears the absolutism of the Pure. Mélange, hotch-potch, a bit of this and a bit of that is how newness enters the world."

The Unesco Convention affirms the "principle of equal dignity of and respect for all cultures." (What, all cultures - including those of the K.K.K. and the Taliban?) It also affirms "the importance of culture for social cohesion in general, and in particular its potential for the enhancement of the status and role of women in society." In northern Nigeria, mullahs inveigh against polio vaccination while sentencing adulteresses to death by stoning. In India, thousands of wives are burned to death each year for failing to make their dowry payments.

As with the mad Mullahs and bin Laden etc. their motto might as well be the sardonic German saying Und willst du nicht mein Bruder sein, So schlag' ich Dir den Schädel ein. (If you don't want to be my brother, then I'll smash your skull in.)

Tolerance indeed has its limits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/magazine/01cosmopolitan.html?pagewanted=9&ei=5088&en=065751ceb5e1741c&ex=1293771600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

StevenLMeyer,

The entities committing the "cultural" crimes you list aren't cultures in the sense of multiculturalism, but in the sense of a "culture of fear".

It is not Iranian culture that enforces the hijab but a bunch of traditionalist thugs. Palestinian culture doesn't send suicide bombers to Israel, it is the al-Qassam brigades. American culture does not bomb Iraq, the American air force does. Jewish culture doesn't demolish Palestinian houses, the Israeli armed forces do.

These crimes are not acceptable in a liberal democracy. I do not think liberal democracies should therefore refuse entry to people from the places where these crimes are normal; quite the contrary.

It is already criminal in Australia to kill. I happily endorse a campaign to make it a crime in Australia to prevent a woman from educating herself or to force her to wear particular clothing, if it isn't already.

If I were to say instead, I believe there is no *person* (from any culture) who cannot be accommodated in a liberal democratic polity *provided* that the person is prepared to obey the laws of that polity, could you respect that opinion?

You seem unquestioningly to accept Putnam's (reluctant) conclusion that diversity has costs independent of the other variables affecting social capital: home ownership, levels of education, economic inequality, population mobility and even the time people spend commuting. He acknowledges that ethnic diversity has a very strong correlation with some of these variables. I have doubts that accurately "correcting for" these factors is possible. He *hasn't* studied variables like job security, time in front of computers, or the prevalence of intolerance in received wisdom like the press and the pulpit.

A priori and from personal anecdotal evidence ("Bin Laden, get off the bus!"), intolerant public discourse directly erodes social capital in diverse neighbourhoods. Public inclusiveness probably has the opposite effect.

The question of social capital is a big one and goes much further than the costs of ethnic diversity. Even if diversity does have a real underlying impact on social capital, it is clearly possible to improve social capital by addressing the other factors.

Multiculturalism in this country is dead as long as Kevin Andrews is immigration minister.

http://www.andrewsmustresign.com/

Hmmm…What a cock up….is it just incompetence or a bit of politicking?

You gotta feel a little sorry for Haneef. I’ve tried to gives Andrew’s the benefit of the doubt but this self confessed Christian of ‘repute’ is starting to stretch a things little far…and to think I’ve voted liberal for all these years...

The online conversation by Haneef, another piece of wonderful evidence, included an entreaty by Haneef's brother for him to leave his contact details with the British police before leaving Australia. Something Andrews omitted to tell us.
Andrews's latest line is that he is still in possession of wonderful secrets.

All a bit of a sneaky subterfuge. As the SMH put it, “The little Aussie flag clamped to his buttonhole told us this was no ordinary desperate minister, this was a loyal Australian, albeit one giving off a lot of double-talk.”

“Australia is a multicultural society, full stop.” – K.A. He’s also just a little wrong there too.. even without the full stop

Xoddam,

You are trying to define away the problem by denying the existence of some of the nasty aspects of certain cultures.

The hijab, Jihad (in the military sense), the inferior status of women, homophobia, antisemitism and an intolerance of apostasy are VERY MUCH part of contemporary Muslim culture. Many INDIVIDUAL Muslims do not subscribe to some or all of these views. But many do and, in a liberal democracy, that is their RIGHT.

I am not trying to impose my views or culture on anybody. I am not trying restrict anyone's right of free speech. If you believe, as the OFT-QUOTED hadith states:

'The Prophet said: "Judgment Day will come only when the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind the tree and the stone, and the tree and the stone say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him' - except for the Gharqad tree."'*

Then by all means preach that.

BUT I am claiming my own right of free speech. That includes the right to point out what I consider rotten in various cultures. Most specifically I am not going to be deterred by some wacky ideology called multiculturalism that tries to pretend all cultures are equally good and compatible with liberal secular democracy.

I am also not going to pretend it's a good idea to allow people holding the views I've alluded to above to migrate here.


I do not accept Putnam's research uncritically. I accept it because it was:

-Rigorous

-Extensive enough to produce statistically reliable results

-Confirms the results of previous research

-Demonstrates the opposite of what the researcher was trying to prove.

Putnam's research raises issues that need to be addressed. I don't have answers but a good first step would be to abandon denial, trying to define the problem out of existence, pious hopes, trying to guilt people into behaving better and any other such cute stratagems and to focus on REALITY.

Banjo and others

The oppression of women, child brides, pedophilia, FGM, the caste system, hatred, cock fighting, etc are becoming illegal or disapproved of in MC Australia, as is old fashioned ocker bing drinking and that is as it should be. Intending immigrants should be warned of that before they arrive. I would like to see arrogance and contempt for other cultures also ended but that I am afraid is embedded in our WASP attitudes and will be difficult to weed out.

Often minorities do avoid intermarriage, how is that a problem. Sir John Monash married within the small Jewish community, did that make him less of an Australian? I can give you many more examples.

Logic,
You claimed that MC was about hanging onto the good things of ones culture. I still want to know what you think should be done about the bad things that come with some cultures. Oppression of women and cockfighting still occur despite knowledge of the illegality and FGM is illegal and increasing in the face of a huge education campaign. Obviously they want to hang onto these too.

You need to remove your rose coloured glasses and see the real world. Hey, these are Aussie girls that suffer FGM and you idealistic pro multiculturalists continue to ignore it and all the other baggage that comes with some cultures.

How about we only allow migrants in that have acceptable cultural things and we exclude those nationalities that have shown they cannot or will not abide by our laws and social standards. Fair enough?

logic - on this and other threads, your contributions are invariably level-headed, reasonable and intelligent.

You rock, mate. If only the rest of us (me included) approached these issues with your equanimity, we might actually get somewhere.

I suppose we all approach multiculturalism with perspectives and passions that are more or less immutable, so it strikes me that when this issue is discussed - online, MSM or academically - we are mostly wasting each other's time and energy.

When sentiments such as Tom's are expressed in this forum, they invariably attract ignorant, hateful and otherwise counterproductive commentary such as we see above. I'm as guilty as many of posting comments about multiculturalism that are less than conducive to reaching some kind of middle ground.

Is it not possible to discuss multiculturalism from a dispassionate, civil perspective that recognises the contemporary world, rather than from one that pines for a nostalgic and imaginary homogeneity?

C J Morgan

Re the misspell, yes I did miss that point. Sorry about that.

Logic said: "Muticulturalism does not have to mean separation, it means hanging on to what is good in your own culture and sharing it with others, so that we are all enriched."

Every Western nation that swallowed the suicide pill of multiculturalism is now experiencing problems with social fragmentation and ethnic balkanization. From the UK and the Netherlands to Australia and Canada, a fractured, discordant seething sea of ethnic, cultural and religious tension has emerged, gradually rendering the host nation's culture irrelevant. How does enrich a nation's citizenry?

On the topic of sharing cultures, how has multiculturalism culturally 'enriched' the average Aussie? Sure, one could bang on incessantly about how multiculturalism has segregated our capital cities and eroded Australia's national identity, but what about the tangible benefits? Tell me Logic, what do you know about the teachings of Confucius? Or the Arabic alphabet? Care to tell us your thoughts on the Hindu caste system?

I think you'll find that the great thing about the current form of ideological multiculturalism practiced here in Australia is that it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures - all it requires is feeling good about every culture other than our own.

If anything this debate opens up the way in which whites are conditioned to think (or not think) about their (apparent) race, as well as the ways in which it conditions their relationship to nonwhites and to power and privilege.

In the face of this white tendency to demonise Multiculturalism some key questions need to be asked.

o Are whites still good for Australia?

o Have they been living in their white urban ghettos for too long?

o Are they dividing Australia?

o Do we need an assimilation program to ease them into MC Australia?

I've suspected for some time that Rainier harboured racist attitudes, but I guess we all have some confirmation now.

Just some quick questions for Rainier though - would you be so kind as to define 'whites'? Who fits this imaginary category?

Does Australia need these 'white' people (whoever they may be)? Well, the modern nation-state of Australia was created and built by people from Europe, mainly from the British Isles. These people built the cities, towns, roads, railway lines and bridges, planted the crops and transformed arid scrub into the world's food bowl, developed a prosperous economy, transplanted a successful liberal democratic political system, made great advances in medicine, science, art and literature, and, in the process, established one of the richest, freest and most stable nations in the world.

The fact that we are communicating in a North Germanic language originating in England attests to the overwhelmingly predominant role such people played in this nation's development. Incidentially, they were also the first people to introduce a written language to this continent. To put it simply, European civilisation forms the indispensable basis of modern Australia. It's the incontrovertible truth.

Reminds me of that Winston Churchill quote: "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."

Dresdend,

You ask me to define this 'imaginery' people but then go about telling me who you think they are (but only in a mythological historical sense). Your appaling knowledge of labour history is one thing, your blindness to your own ethnicity as a 'white person' is quite another.( and yes they are inherently linked)

So for me Multiculturalism is not really about issues relating to non-whites its really about who gets a slice of the big white cake called nationalism. This is conceived of as legal or cultural property where whiteness is seen to provide material and symbolic privilege to whites, those passing as white, and sometimes honorary whites.

Like I said in my previous post we desperately need a program of assimilation to bring people like you into the real world. It would be negligent of us not to.

I think we need to lobby Howard (or Rudd) to develop some legislation that brings xenophobic, paranoid, scared white out of their little white worlds and into the one most people in the world live in.

Lets face it Dresden, this is a world where everyone accepts and knows that only 18% of the world's population are white and they/you desperately need to be bought into the 21st century and not bask in the glory of distant white past that history now tells us never really happened.

Take my hand brother; let me lead you out of the darkness into the light! Don't be scared, my color is only skin deep.

Multiculturalism is fantastic. Unfortunately multiculturalism destroys it.

http://www.anus.com/tribes/au/index.php?mode=show&file=Articles/24Jul2007201243.txt

David Palmer: "Come to any number of Presbyterian (Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, etc, etc) congregations in the 'burbs and you will see real live multiculturalism at work across multiple ethnic groups and all under the Christian banner"

So multiculturalism's OK as long as it's Christian?

Cornflower - no worries :)

Dresdener: "To put it simply, European civilisation forms the indispensable basis of modern Australia"

No argument there. However, we've moved on a long way from there. The toothpaste's out of the tube, old chap.

Rainier: "Take my hand brother; let me lead you out of the darkness into the light! Don't be scared, my color is only skin deep.".

Hear, hear. Let's have less fear and more mutual respect.

LOL, Rainier, you demonstrate yet again that the last refuge of the cornered Leftie is an accusation of racism.

You are the only person here discussing race, Rainier. The rest of us are discussing culture.

I'll not deny that some people use "culture" as code for "race." But most don't. For myself, when I speak about "culture" I mean just that.

Chinese Confucian culture and Indian Hindu culture seem very compatible with mainstream Australian culture. Immigrants from these cultures, and their descendants, seem to prosper here. I personally would have no concerns if the number of immigrants from these sources were to rise. Neither Chinese nor Indians are white.

I do have a question mark in my mind about some other cultures. Not races. I'm not even sure what a "race" is.

rainier

Are you arguing that certain cultures and belief systems should be immune from critique, analysis, satire and scorn?

If so which ones? Choose from the following list (in alphabetical order).

Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity (Catholic), Christianity (Orthodox), Christianity (Protestant), Fascism, Hinduism, Islam (Shia), Islam (Sunni), Judaism, Marxism, Nazism, Scientology, Sikhism, Socialism, Vegetarianism, Zionism, Zoroastrianism.

Feel free to add to the list.

These are not rhetorical questions rainier. I'm genuinely interested in your answers.

Let's try and avoid "yes but" or "no but" replies in which the "but" negates the original answer.

We either have free speech or we don't. (NOW THERE'S A CORE AUSTRALIAN VALUE!)

Rainier,

Without doubt you are a racist. I would be sacked on the spot if I made comments like yours but inserted the word ‘black’ or ‘yellow’ or ‘Muslim’ everywhere ‘white’ occurred. I invite everyone to reread Rainier’s posts with this change in mind.

Whilst there are some posters on OLO who want to end non white immigration, they are among a very small minority of those who oppose multiculturalism. The problems we face due to multiculturalism aren’t about race or ethnicity, they are about expectation. Multiculturalism encourages the ghettofication of our cities by not encouraging new migrants to engage with Australians and our culture. There are not expected to learn English, which is a major barrier to better understanding between new migrants and other Australians. We also tolerate bigotry and prejudice where it otherwise would not be tolerated. In short multiculturalism puts up barriers where bridges should be built

The fanciful and dangerous idea that anyone can come to Australia and live their life as though they were still in their home country is perpetuated by multiculturalism. It is a divisive policy that has brought nothing but trouble.

By the way Rainier, if you bothered to take a look at the monocultures of this world, you would note that they are virtually all non-white. Australia is among the most racially and ethnically mixed countries in the world.

As I and others have said before, we don’t care what colour, caste, religion or culture a person is. What should be important to those who wish to migrate to Australia is a willingness to become an Aussie and embrace our way of life.

Those who insist that opponents of multiculturalism are opponents of non-white immigration are either, like Rainier rabid racists or simpletons.

xoddam,

Please let's get the facts right about Australians and EEC nationals voting in the UK. see:

http://www.lothian-vjb.gov.uk/er_qualify_txt.htm

If you consider voting in scottish and local elections full voting rights good luck to you.

Forest Gump,

I completely sympathise with you on your attitude to our Constitution, but you have to remember that it is interpreted by our marvellous High Court.

Section 30 of the Constitution allows parliament to determine the qualifications to vote in commonwealth elections in any way it pleases, subject only to section 41.

The High Court has decided that the UK is now a foreign country, so that section 44 now disqualifies a dual UK-Australian citizen from standing for parliament. It doesn't disqualify a dual Greek-Australian citizen, because there is no way you can renounce Greek citzenship, and that would disqualify an inconvienient number of people.

The decision also has the ludicrous result that our constitution is now on force on foreign ships (see section 5 of the preamble).

The court has effectively repealed section 41, which guarantees a commonwealth vote if you have a state vote; has discovered implied clauses in the constitution, that have never been approved by the people in a referendum; and has interpreted many other sections in a manner totally favourable to the commonwealth.

I am surprised that there are still people advocating another referendum on a republic. Surely it would be easier and cheaper for the High Court to rule that the constutional provisions relating to the Queen are temproary provisions, and that there are implied provisions providing for a President elected by both Houses of Federal Parliament?

Until we get citizen initiated referendums, as operate in Switzerland, and can enact provisions into law in the teeth of the opposition of the entire political and legal elite, we can expect unusual interpretations to continue.

By the way, if such referendums were in force now I would love to vote in one that provided that wanks such as APEC must be held at the Woomera detention centre.

Didnt multiculturalism ultimately give a warm home to Chen Yonglins 1,000 spies?

No, we shouldnt go back to it. I dont even know if we can because of the terrorism problem. It's probably closing the door right now. National security may not permit the door to open again. In the beginning we werent ready for multiculturalism from a security point of view. So many different people, from so many cultures, all with their new religions (and often internal religious squabbles requiring police monitoring of potentially violent little groups) and neither ASIO or the Federal Police had clicked to the enormity of the problems. The NSW Police Force werent ready. September 11 hit and we still werent ready. Its time for Australia to become concerned with Australians. Black and white. Just us folk. *Why are Chen Yonglins 1,000 spies here? They are here because in Chinese classrooms during the 1980's there were maps on the walls that refered to Australia as NEW CHINA and NEW SOUTH CHINA. Time to look after ourselves...and prepare.

"The fact that we are communicating in a North Germanic language originating in England." Well not really. The English language is a mixture of several Germanic languages plus French Latin Greek and Celtic.

The British culture was a mix of many cultures, it was multicultural as a result of invasions. And many of our indigenous people are not communicating in English. Were do you all place them?

It all depends upon your definition of multicultural. Even within the Anglo Saxon group we have different cultures, according to social class education, religion. Open your eyes and look at the various cultures within the peer group. Some like a night with their friends at a pub, others would not even walk inside one. Some prefer theatre or opera and buy paintings. And the different groups tend not to intermarry and even dress and speak English differently!

Even in the convict days the society was heavily divided between free settlers, convicts, soldiers and aborigines. The anti MC people are saying we now stick only with certain approved existing cultures and all others should be banned. Not many however would revert to the old style cooking, or give up the outdoor cafes.

“It all depends upon your definition of multicultural.” – Quite so.

Culture, In its symbolic form, is based on arbitrarily assigned meanings that are shared by a society – it has it shared ideals, values or rules for living. The ideals of purity and preservation, however, have licensed a great deal of mischief in the past century, but they have never had much to do with lived culture.

The Greeks referred to those who did not speak their language as barbarians, that is stammerers, as if they did not speak at all. But a few more mature Greeks, like the Stoics, noticed that although the barbarians used different words, they referred to the same thoughts.
If multiculturalism, however, is defined as "preserving culture" and resisting the so called "cultural imperialism", where the fear is that the values and images of Western mass culture, like some invasive weed, are threatening to choke out the world's native flora, it becomes mere political ideology.

Whilst culture is important, it is a shared diversity that is more important in the context of pluralism and the current globalisation occurring, where we can all freely have choice (some clearly, don’t have this).

Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto; "I am human: nothing human is alien to me."

Paul,
Besides the usual ill thought out world history and mythology you trot out (its not the first time such pathetic revelation have been throw up as defence to me) I did agree with one thing your stated and that was this-

"The fanciful and dangerous idea that anyone can come to Australia and live their life as though they were still in their home country is perpetuated by multiculturalism. It is a divisive policy that has brought nothing but trouble."

As an Indigenous person to this country I totally agree. And the history certainly attests to this.

But does this mean I hate white people? Of course not.

But so many white people do not have to think of being a race. Why?

Well mostly because you don't have to as you live a privilidged life where only people who are not whit have to think of being a 'race' on a daily basis.

Multicultual is not about white people standing at the centre deciding the virtues of other cultures or races at the parameters.

As for calling me a racist well thats your call.

Count how many times in your life you've experience racism and then get back to me and see if we tally up the same.

I'll beat you by a country mile easy. Not something I am proud of but this proves that racism is a white problem, not a non white problem.

Multicultural means everything and anyone - unless you happen to be of Scots descent. We don't count. We have no culture. We have no claim to any sort of anything apparently. (Gee even the Irish get St Patrick's Day!)
That is the problem with multiculturalism...it recognises some things but not others. It says some things are important and others are not.
Why is Greek or Vietnamese culture more important than Scots culture? Why do they get funds and we do not? Why does St Patrick's Day get reported but St Andrew's Day or St David's day do not rate a mention?
There is nothing 'multicultural' about 'multiculturalism'. It is just the reverse. It encourages people to be separate, to cling to the past, to build enclaves.
I would much prefer to see a 'diversity of cultures' in which everyone shared and some lesser known events, perhaps a Hindu festival or somesuch, had equal status with the well known ones.

Rainier said: "Your appaling knowledge of labour history is one thing, your blindness to your own ethnicity as a 'white person' is quite another.( and yes they are inherently linked)"

So a Scot from Glasgow, a Georgian from Tblisi and a Brazilian of German descent from Santa Catarina all belong to the same ethnicity?

I'm well aware of my ethnic heritage, and let me assure you, the colour of my skin is incidental and immaterial. It seems only CJ Morgan and yourself are obsessed with concepts of 'race' and 'whiteness'.

You've basically admitted that you're a racist, and by failing to condemn your vile rants, CJ Morgan has demonstrated his abject hypocrisy on such matters. How disgraceful.

Poor Dresdener seems to be becoming more embittered by the day. Now he's pursuing his 'ethnic cleansing' fantasy by picking on one of this forum's few Aboriginal participants. Fortunately, Rainier's more than capable of sticking up for himself.

Rainier: "Take my hand brother; let me lead you out of the darkness into the light! Don't be scared, my color is only skin deep.".

Morgan, in response to Rainier: "Hear, hear. Let's have less fear and more mutual respect."

Dresdener: "How disgraceful".

Yup. Truly disgraceful.

Communicat

Your last sad post bewailed the lack of recognition of Australians of Scots descent.

Your assumptions are wacky. "... multiculturalism...recognises some things but not others." You are reifying multiculturalism as if it is a thing independent of people. It's people who make decisions not words.

Moreover, your facts are dodgy: "We [people of Scots descent] don't count. We have no culture. We have no claim to any sort of anything apparently..."

Look around you.

I went shopping yesterday and looked at my cash. The $100, $20, $10 and $5 notes all commemorate Australians of Scots descent. In fact the $10 note celebrates the contribution to Australia of two people of Scots descent. Scots dominate our currency like no other group.

When we sing the Australian National Anthem we sing the words penned by a Scots-Australian who also wrote the words for the alternative National Anthem, Waltzing Matilda.

I googled 39 Pipe Bands in Victoria alone and the Scottish Gaelic Society of Victoria which runs Gaelic language classes. The Scottish Australian Heritage Council, which produces a glossy quarterly magazine, broke out its own Scottish-Australian flag in Sydney in 1988.

You said: "…[Multiculturalism…encourages people to be separate, to cling to the past, to build enclaves." Are pipe bands, foreign language classes and heritage flags 'enclaves'?

Are posh girls' schools in Australia that make their girls wear tartan skirts and have House names like McDonald and Fraser enclaves? What about naming one of our capital cities after a Scottish city? And our Grampians after the Scottish ones? Or Australians voting in a Scots-born Prime Minister - not once but three times?

You ask: “Why is Greek or Vietnamese culture more important than Scots culture?” Where is the Greek-Australian or the Vietnamese-Australian PM? Do Greek or Vietnamese have claim to our national dictionary, our biggest enterprise bank and two universities?

Maybe 'multiculturalism' is just a sandpit for recent arrivals to play in while the Scots-Australians get on with running the country?

My apologies, plerdsus, you're absolutely right. Non-Commonwealth EU citizens may not vote in UK Parliamentary elections.

Commonwealth citizens legally resident in the UK do have "full voting rights", as do EU citizens from Eire, Cyprus and Malta (these countries are both EU and at least "honorary" Commonwealth members).

As an Australian I merrily voted in local, Scottish and Parliamentary elections while I was a Scottish resident.

StephenLMeyer,

I do not "define away" the problem you're pointing out. I recognise it as a problem. But it is not a problem with multiculturalism, it is a problem with a particular flavour of fanatic. Illiberal fanaticism of any sort is self-evidently incompatible with a liberal polity.

You say Indian Hindu culture is compatible with Australian liberalism, but Hindus are every bit as likely to suppress their wives and daughters as are Muslims. I suppose that Australia's large German, and Eastern European minorities are likewise compatible with Australian liberalism, just as long as we ignore the fact that some of their home countries were only a few decades ago overwhelmed by anti-Semitism supported by "oft quoted" passages of Christian scripture.

Multiculturalism (as Incoherrant's link points out) destroys itself in the sense that the result tends to assimilation. The differences between the assimilationist policy of Menzies and the subsequent multicultural policy boil down to two things: we've stopped calling the new arrivals New Australians and giving them a free boot camp, and we've started taking non-Europeans. Some of those non-Europeans are Muslims, and occasionally Muslims (among other people) become or turn out to be fanatics.

The only way that I differ from Lane's "tolerant mono-culturalism" is that I think the all-subsuming "culture" should not be the host culture itself (which is perfectly entitled to the status of primus inter pares) but the liberal principle of secularism itself. What else is to preserve tolerance in the face of changing demographics and shrill scapegoating?

Wellll I see PROGRESS....

LOGIC points out and underlines the END goal of my ONE NATION, ONE RACE, ONE CULTURE mantra by showing that is EXACTLY what happened in the UK -thanx Logic :) How many of us ask if this or that particular 'brit' is in reality of
-French
-Celtic
-Viking
-Germanic

background ? NONE of us.. I'd say. Why ? because they are all blended now.. into...wait for it.. ONE..... except for the ratbag element among the migrants who wont even let women into their mosques "GO HOME.. you don't belong here.. go on- get out, MOOVVEEEE.. shoo"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb8shFIkx78

Can't see much chance of 'blending' here.

Unfortunately XODDAM goes off the rails with his call for 'secularism' to be the guiding light, rather than 'host culture'

Xoddam wishes all of us who have a sense of 'culture and identity' to be culled from reality, and to forget it all in the name of 'secularism'

TROJAN HORSE.. what 'is' "Secularism" does it tell us to shake hands or to bow or rub noses when we meet people ? Does it tell us which custom should prevail in a paricular country ? NO! it does not, but guess what..CULTURE does.
Presumably XODDAM regards 'secularism' as being a uniform culture wherever it exists. hmmmmm Xod...you might like to rethink that one mate.

CARTOON MOMENT..I can imagine a Japanese, a Maori and an Aussie.. yep..one of those jokes :) they all come together and the Maori tries to rub noses with the Japanese man who 'bows' and headbutts him, blood everywhere, The Aussie tries to shake hands with 'the sound of one hand clapping' :) but ends up smacking the Japanese bloke in the face... more blood.

SOLUTION "Host Cultures Prevail"

C J and Rainier,
"Hear, hear, lets have less fear and more mutual respect"

If you blokes can convince the Croats, Serbs, Lebanes Muslims and the Sunnis and Shia of that, we would be nearly there. Then there would be a chance for multiculturalism to work.

Logic “And when you ask for assimilation I ask you, to what. Are we all to become aborigines, or Irish, or English, what?”

Hi Logic, I would predict we would continue to become more uniquely “Australian”.

Australia would retain the highpoints of immigrant cultures whilst continuing to build on our historically British Institutions and traditions (example I doubt we would change from the English model of legal prosecution or parliament to some (say) Napoleonic system), whilst moulding them to suit our evolving national identity.

Re” multiculturalism at its best asks for tolerance and sharing.”

“Assimilation” does not inhibit tolerance or sharing. Assimilation simply recognises that the best way for a new-comer to integrate into a pre-existing society is for the new-comer to take on the “burden of change”, rather than expect the society to part ways to make a special space for him. (that was my strategy when I migrated 25 years ago and it worked for me).

As for “To stick to Anglo Australian Christian values”
In this religiously tolerant secular society, the “Christian” part is irrelevant.
As for the “Anglos”, they were assimilated as were the Saxons, Normans etc to the point where Australia was colonised by a race of “assimilants”, rather than something “ethnically pure” (which might well be the secret to the “British national strength” it avoided the risks of interbreeding, reducing the melanoma cancers plaguing the white skin, red hair and freckles of “Australian-Celts”).

As they say “there are a lot of coffee coloured people in Brazil”.

My personal view will always be to support assimilation because it is the process of most “inclusion”.

Multiculturalism or anything else, which inhibits or detracts from the process of free and natural mixing, as achieved by assimilation, is morally wrong and reprehensible because it puts up barriers to that natural, free and independent mixing of people and fosters separate development or to use another word, “segregation” (example cults like the exclusive brethren and other divisive religions or ethnically exclusive “gangs”).

"Host Cultures Prevail" – as a solution? It ‘aint’ so simple David ...

Well known is the transition from one culture into another as being a painful and disorienting process, known as ‘cultural shock’ – a concept significant for those who are involved with bicultural communities. There is significant insight here into the myriad of role conflicts among immigrants, emigrants, foreign students, foreign managers, migrant workers, and other travelers to foreign lands.

You should recognise (if you are a biblical scholar) the Greeks, who were concerned, not with separation, but totally with the process of integration (seemingly a good thing). The only cosmos was the status quo. Nothing else mattered. As a matter of fact, they were highly intolerant of anyone who did not culturally belong. Consequently, they were only interested in the essence of being (ousia) and not in the process or the transition of becoming (genesis).

In understanding the transition from one culture to another, it is a shift from one form of purity to another. The transition period from one ordered social reality to the other is one of cultural chaos. It endangers the old and threatens the new. It is a world of double alienation - it is for this reason that a person in transition is treated as a non-person. The transition from the old home culture to the new host culture is traumatic. Look no further than to our own indigenous people for an example (except, a little ironically, they were the host culture supplanted – recognised only as a part of the flora and fauna).

Remember, when cultures are historically disparate, the culture shock grows exponentially. Languages which are diachronically close to each other share greater comprehension than languages which are not.

Col

I think we are together on that. The question is how can we best assist the process and how long it will take? I think aspects of MC such as interest in each others cultures assist the process.

And importantly, what do we do in the meantime. I personally look at some cultures with excitement, and hope that they will be included. But things which we consider bad, the questions are how harmful are they to us, will they go away with the next generation, or do we need to stop them in their tracks.

David

If Islam is to reform anywhere it will be here. The old convict memory and attitudes are too strong, I worry about it less than you do. I laugh at some of the old Yiddish customs brought here by my great grandparents, but some of the are fine, and some Yiddish words are even in the Australian form of English.

Be concerned, but have patience.

The best quote from the article is "showing respect for each other’s culture, religion and race is a core universal value and fundamental to our democratic principles."

A fundamental starting point is the freedom to choose, and more importantly, CHANGE religion. This is found in the earliest of UN documents.

So, how can you apply a universalist notion to cultures and religions which do not share universalist principles. Notice race is not the question or issue here, as all HUMANS have inalienable rights even the unborn, but, the UN is trying to revise that one out of its founding documents and is another debate...

So how can we support MC when some groups do not ascribe to the underlying principles that allow its very existance? Can a Muslim go to Rome? Sure can, even into St Peter's, and in the absence of overt external signs, he/she could probably go to communion, or more likely, visit the very large mosque built in that city and across western Europe.

Can a westerner visit Mecca, or attend a cathedral in Saudi territory?

All of this boils down to some aspects being based on assent (to believe, follow the rule of law etc) cf to submission to force.

Hi Reality,

You've hit the nail on the head, pointing out that cultural relativism -- the pretence that all systems of values are equally valid -- is a dangerous falsehood.

"Multiculturalism" isn't cultural relativism. (Dresdner: it's not a Canadian coinage, it's Lenin's)

Multiculturalism encourages international relations, which in turn can encourage liberalisation of the places whence people have fled illiberal regimes.

It's about making minorities welcome in the nation they find themselves in after migration, revolution or annexation; protecting them from oppression by the majority population; encouraging them to bring gifts to the cultural table (dancing aside). It's simple good manners.

It also helps prevent or delay the disappearance of beautiful (even quaint) cultural practices. The Amish stay Amish and the Hasidim Hasidic through jealous defence of their own difference. Multiculturalism affords similar protection to people from less determinedly anachronistic cultures.

What multiculturalism must not do is privilege "tradition" within these protected minorities above reasonable law, permitting people to abuse "their" women and children by segregation, forced marriage, sexual or psychological abuse or by compromising their education.

All these abuses are -- as asserted above -- consequences of extreme religious belief. The unacknowledged elephant in the room is that the same flaws exist in *any* privilege of faith (even "moderate" religion) over reason. The right to practice one's religion should not extend to the right to teach one's children that faith trumps reason.

This is the subject of Chapter 9 of Richard Dawkins' book _The God Delusion_. I read this chapter last night, and it articulated what I failed to say clearly here before.

Secular principles (even when upheld by an established Church as in England) provide a country with freedom from extremism and a stable legal framework, and make it an attractive destination for refugees.

Extremism within majority "host cultures" is just as capable of assaulting sanity as minorities. Christian Reconstructionists threaten America like the Muslim Brotherhood threatens Egypt; both countries are at greater risk from their majority religions than Australia will ever be from any immigrant minority.

xoddam, apparently your religion and biblical resource is ok though, since you are free to use both to dictate to others how they should behave.

The very thing refugees are fleeing is their cultural behaviors. Multiculturalism ensures they make no clean break but, bring their nonsense with them to their host country which, prior to their arrival, had not that difficulty.

Very fvnny, aqvarivs. Science and law are not bibles.

I accord no canonical privilege to Dawkins nor any other science writer, I am merely persuaded to agree with them. I retain the ability and the right to persuaded by something better. Likewise I don't think the law of the land is perfect, but it makes a better and more useful starting point than anyone's holy book.

I do not tell anyone how to behave. If anyone is persuaded to agree with me by my writing then I will be rather pleased.

There are existing legal obligations on parents to ensure the safety and the education of children in our community. What I am doing is not dictating, but advocating an extension of the child protection already mandated by our community. There's a very good argument that religious indoctrination is a form of psychological abuse; it makes sense that children should be protected from it.

Any public policy which forces immigrants to "make a clean break" is *precisely* dictatorial. I have no idea who gave you the idea that Australia's existing multicultural policy imposes anything -- if people want to make a clean break from their past, on arrival in Australia as immigrants or at any time in their lives, they are free to do so.

xoddam

I for one think you have hit the nail on the head. We do have a right to forbid certain practices which go against our own dearly held principles. Within those boundaries, defined usually by law and public knowledge, people should be allowed to exist.

If we make it clear that these practicess (eg forced marriage) is not allowed, immigrants have a clear boundary. If their behaviour seems strange or amusing to the rest that is their problem, if on the other hand locals like their handcrafts or food or manners that will be appreciated. But the locals should still be encouraged to understand legitimate customs of the new arrivals, that to me is multiculturalism.

With regard to the indigenous inhabitants however the rules must be different. After all in this case the rest of us are the intruders.

xoddam, all laws are dictatorial. And multiculturalism as a method of governing is inhibiting us from dictating the law and enforcing the law on the basis that it is politically incorrect to do so. I am not against any particular culture. I'm against governing by culture. That is what MC has become. That you don't see that and want to refer to Dawkins for your inspiration is ok by me. All I ask is that you be honest enough to admit to your own religion of atheism or secularism in competition with the other religions. Having read Dawkins I found he can be as doctrinal and dogmatic as any religion for a person so against religion.
Do two extreme s make a moderate?
In the main religion in Australia is not authoritarian and children reading from the Bible or Tanakh or the Koran or the Bhagavadgiitaa, etc. are unlikely to become BRAINWASHED. But, and however much secular extremist attack religions, most religions will remain neutral and moderate in their expression, that some become defensive and politically entrenched can not necessarily be laid at the feet of religion. Atheist/secularist will have helped to create that environment.

aqvarivs: "In the main religion in Australia is not authoritarian and children reading from the Bible or Tanakh or the Koran or the Bhagavadgiitaa, etc. are unlikely to become BRAINWASHED"

I agree.

So what happened to your brain during your childhood, aqvarivs? Was it an environmental thing, or was it congenital?

"If you blokes can convince the Croats, Serbs, Lebanes Muslims and the Sunnis and Shia of that, we would be nearly there. Then there would be a chance for multiculturalism to work"
Posted by Banjo

Thanks for the advice Banjo --now how do you suggest i convince short sighted, narrow minded, ocker rednecks who post xenophobic crap here on OLO to be more MC?

aqvarivs, laws which protect individual liberty are not dictatorial. Atheism is one thing (an opinion, but by no means a religion); secularism quite another. Secularism is the liberal idea that government should keep out of matters of conscience. It was invented in Europe after various wars related to the Reformation, and has no relation to atheism. A secular polity is *necessary* to keep differences of opinion from tearing society apart.

I can't repeat these points often enough: In Australia, multiculturalism was the END of government "by culture". All it does is make people welcome.

From 1901 to 1966 Australia had a blatantly racist immigration policy and, until the 1970s, a draconian assimilationist system of "migrant assistance" which obliged non-British migrants to speak English, to live where they were told, and to identify as New Australians. Migrants and refugees are now accepted on their individual merits, not the merits of their race and culture.

From 1979 on, a few policies were adopted which attempted to address (in different terms) the decline in social capital which is -- as StevenLMeyer kept pointing out above -- a potential consequence of unplanned diversity. Services are delivered to migrants in languages they can speak. They are made welcome and free to live where they please. And our children are taught in schools to respect cultural differences.

Australian multicultural policy does *not* govern "by culture". There is not one law on the books, one regulation, or one educational resource that even *hints* that "culture" might take precedence over individual liberty and the rule of law.

Teaching children to respect other people's rights is a necessary part of a liberal education. There is a natural inclination to xenophobia, often reinforced by socialisation (especially the listening-to-talkback-radio kind of socialisation), which it is necessary to correct by inculcating respect for difference. It is hard to do that without actually showing examples, so liberal education teaches respect for actual existing cultures, particularly those vulnerable to racist attack and scapegoating.

That's it. Actual, existing multicultural policy goes no further. To decry imaginary ghettoes and policy straw-men proves nothing but ignorance.

Rainier,
In your quest to promote more mutual respect, the government could assist you by stopping the importation of those groups that have shown they won't integrate and will not abide by, or respect, our laws or social standards. This would leave only those already here or born here.

When you get the Croats and Serbs,Sunnis and Shia to respect each other and the Lebs to respect anyone at all, anything else like a few rednecks will be a piece of cake for you. The few that will be around by then won't be game to raise their flat little heads because of overwhelming public support for the new cohesive community you have created.

In fact you will have acheived Multiculturalism and integration at the same time.

Xoddam,

You are clearly under the mistaken belief that EVERYONE has a right to come and live in Australia.

You said “ until the 1970s, a draconian assimilationist system of "migrant assistance" which obliged non-British migrants to speak English, to live where they were told, and to identify as New Australians.”

Draconian? You must be joking.

Learning to speak the language, living where you are most needed and identifying yourself with the country you have just adopted as your new home, is just good manners. The onus is on the visitor to learn the language of the land, not the other way around. Speaking the language also helps bridge the cultural divide. How can that be a bad thing?

The very essence of the problem with multiculturalism is that it creates an ‘us and them‘ type situation.

You talk a great game about respect for other people’s cultures yet you happily overlook the lack of respect for OUR culture. What makes this so distasteful to many of us is that it comes from people we have welcomed into our country, affording them a second chance.

You said “I can't repeat these points often enough: In Australia, multiculturalism was the END of government "by culture". All it does is make people welcome”
You can say it all you want, it doesn’t make it true. Multiculturalism isn’t about making people feel welcome. People feel welcome when they are encouraged to be a part of their new society. Telling them that they don’t have to make any changes, (like learning English or associating with people outside their ethnic/religious group,) isn’t a great start.

You said “Migrants and refugees are now accepted on their individual merits, not the merits of their race and culture.”
Migrants should be chosen based upon the fact that they want to be Aussies, they would be a good fit with our community and they have some type of skills we need. Outside of this we should have temporary placement for refugees who are fleeing persecution. And thats it.

Banjo, it would be naive of me to believe that the groups that you speak of do not very anti social views about others often create the tensions that exist. But I also know that this pasthologising them all into one basket is wrong and ill informed and this perpetuates the same racism you 'appear' to be against.

Which is it to be, do all these groups fit within your problem defintion or just of each?

If the answer is yes, who are they?

In answering this question remember that:

Almost one half of all Australians were either born overseas or had a parent born in another country.

And-

There was no notion of Australian citizenship until the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 came into effect in 1949. Prior to that, Australians were 'British subjects'

Rainier,
It is irrelevant to me what our citizenship was deemed to be before whatever year or that half or threequarters were born elsewhere.

My concern is that our descendants have a community with minumum social problems. We have enough social problems now and we do not need to import any more. There are some identifiable groups that have shown they carry intense hatred for other groups and some that show no respect for us, our laws or our society. We are stuck with those already here and their offspring.

Don't know about a basket, but there should be a NO MORE WANTED list.

Included on that list should be Serbs and Croats, Iraqi Sunnis and Shia, Lebaese muslims and any identifiable groups/nationalities that carry out FGM,cockfighting, extortion or sex slavery. There may well be others, but that will do for starters.

I clearly blame the idealistic multiculturalism and non-discrimarty immigration policy for allowing people in with incompatable cultural habits. I accept that we may be partly to blame if we have not properly informed prospective migrants about our society before they decided to come here. If so that needs changing immediatly.

The last thing we need to leave our kids is a community with vast social problems like many European countries currently have.

Banjo,
The University of New England (UNE) recently released a study titled ‘The Social Costs and Benefits of Migration into Australia’,
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/social-costs-benefits/index.htm

Read it, it might help you dispel some of those myths or apparent problems you associate with migrants. Essentially the study found that there was no "migrant underclass", and that any anxiety about the formation of "ethnic enclave ghettos" was unfounded, furthermore "the available evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that migrants to Australia have made substantial contributions to Australia's stock of human, social and produced capital." And that most migrants – including those arriving through the humanitarian intake – have over time learnt English, acquired qualifications, and done well. Furthermore, they are generally ambitious for their children to achieve and to have better opportunities in life. So it is the second generation that enjoys most of the benefits of migration."

“There are some identifiable groups that have shown they carry intense hatred for other groups and some that show no respect for us, our laws or our society”
It must be an extremely marginalized section of the migrant community Banjo, your blowing it way out of proportion, the benefits far outweigh any perceived dangers.

Multiculturalism in the past (1970’s-1980’s) was indeed based on a separatist ideology, where cultural pluralism was perpetuating a divisive society, but the current ideal isn’t based on cultural pluralism or minority rights, but rather is based in terms of the cultural, social and economic rights of all citizens in a democratic state, and the success of this is attested to in this report.

Steady on Peachy. Are you asking people to read and consider the facts?

Next thing, you'll be expecting Banjo et all to connect opinions with facts. I know what you're up to...trying to turn them all into leftoids, eh?

C'mon, you know the game...this is a fact-free opinion forum, especially on multiculturalism and migration.

So let's have no more of that radical stuff about facts.

I thank all my God's that there is a fair sprinkling of those who continuously counter this racist bunkum.

It is racism! What else? And it isn't new. Today's target is largely those of "Middle-Eastern Appearance". Now where did that stem from I wonder? Head for Sydney and stare through the cages designed to keep them IN. Could be the answer is there...

Who did we target before?,...let me see, was it the Chinese?, then the 'Dago's'?, 'yellow peril'?;- let's not forget the Vietnamese. Boy! I bet that lot are sighing with relief, after all, they've done THEIR time haven't they?

Mind you 'this lot' are different aren't they? This lot are going to kill us all!

What kind of mindset accepts without question the deliberate climate of fear so calculatingly imposed on us? I wonder if that is REALLY the reason for coffee coloured culture intolerance?

All it did was validate racism. Make it a security issue; make it 'us and them' and it becomes OK.

...........and DON'T lecture me with more of your claptrap; I'm sick of hearing it. I've heard it all my life.

Peachy,
thanks for the link to that report. I will read it with interest. A quick glance suggests that it will be valuable to both sides of the debate, as each will be able to 'cherry pick' pieces to suit their argument, as you have done.

You state "you are blowing it way out of proportion, the benefits far outweigh the dangers" Am I peachy? Are you saying the violent clashes between the Croats and Serbs, the Sunnis and Shia never took place. In these instances people were injured, property destroyed,shots fired at buildings and 2 people were shot. That is real hatred. Should we ignore the fact that Australian girls are being tortured and mutilated by FGM and governments turn a blind eye. Lebanese muslim males continue to be abusive to females and call them whores because of their western dress. We cannot ignore the lead up to 'Cronulla' or the aftermath. At the gathering the following night at Lakemba hand guns were being openly carried. Now you say I am blowing it out of propotion!

You say MC has changed. I say it is dead and integration will take its place. Now we can move on to discuss the benefits of a discrimatary immigration policy.

Told you so, Peachy. Never suggest they read. It agitates them no end.

About that report you recommended: one of them has promised he "will read it with interest". But, that's really quite unnecessary. He already knows you've cherry-picked the report to suit your argument.

"I know what you're up to...trying to turn them all into leftoids, eh?"
Oh shoot, someones onto me.. damn you FrankGol! you've just ruined everything!

Paul L, I do not for a minute believe that "EVERYONE has a right to come and live in Australia". But I do believe that people should have as much right to travel the world as, for instance, investment does.

I would actively oppose the application of someone who has a habit or a policy of doing things which are unacceptable in Australian society or law. On the other hand, applicants for visas and for asylum should be judged with a presumption of innocence.

I'm not opposed to quotas, skills assessments, or background checks on prospective migrants. I'm in favour of permitting people to move here who intend to set up profitable businesses or who have good prospects of finding gainful employment.

When this country had massive government-run regional development programs with a pressing need for manual workers in undeveloped regions, it made good policy sense to send immigrants to work on remote hydroelectric dams. This more-or-less guaranteed that the people who came here had poor prospects in "the old country" and were prepared to give up (almost) everything. At the time we were unashamed to select immigrants on the basis of their skin colour. Now we use different criteria altogether; our economy and hunger for workers has changed dramatically and we are attempting to reverse our historical racism.

I think you'll find that the majority of immigrants have extremely good manners and do assimilate into Australian society. Most of them have been assisted in that goal by the very policies you decry.

It is not the case that multicultural policy in Australia creates an "us and them" situation. An "us and them" situation exists a priori across national boundaries and those of colour and creed; if it didn't why on earth would we be having this discussion?

Multiculturalism is the radical proposition that we should recognise the humanity of people belonging to other cultures.

Anyone rejecting that proposition is a misanthrope or worse.

Xoddam,

You said “But I do believe that people should have as much right to travel the world as, for instance, investment does”
What a curious idea, we aren’t talking about travel by the way, we are talking about residency or citizenship.

We seem to be in almost complete agreement on the issues, including the actuality of migrants assimilating into our society.

I don’t agree with many of the posters who believe certain ethnic groups should be barred from living in this country.
The problem that we have with some of the groups mentioned in posts above is that they have been led to believe that we don’t care if they integrate or not. We weren’t selective about who migrated here. We didn’t differentiate between those who wanted to be Aussies, and those who migrated here because they knew that they could live in Australia but retain all of their old country culture and behaviours. This is the essence of the problem. Multiculturalism says your culture is just as relevant as a code of behaviour as ours is. So if you want to live in a cultural ghetto with limited interaction with Aussies, that’s OK.

You are absolutely right that the’ Us and Them’ situation predated multiculturalism. The problem with multiculturalism is that it has perpetuated this idea. By merely extending the idea of what it is to be Australian to cover anybody, which is what multiculturalism did, you haven’t actually closed the gap between ‘Us and Them’, you have just legitimized it.

Assimilation doesn’t mean that you don’t recognise the humanity of people belonging to other cultures. That’s preposterous. Assimilation merely makes new migrants aware that there are obligations and expectations which come along with your new found rights as an Australian citizen. The assumption that you want to be an Aussie, with all the connotations that brings, including secularism, rule of law, speaking English and an expectation of integration, should be a basic requirement.

None of this is disrespectful to any other culture because it should be expected of everybody, no matter their country of origin

Multiculturalism?
I resign myself to constant misinterpretation and contemptuous bullying by FrankGol:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6017

Tom Calma: "basic human rights" have nothing to do with multiculturalism.
MC wouldn't exist within a monocultural society.
But "basic human rights" would.

Diversity doesn't cause instability?
Diversity = difference.
Conflict *requires* difference.
Therefore, diversity creates conflict.
Sometimes mild, sometimes extreme, but always conflict.

"We need to uphold principles of multiculturalism that:
enshrine the freedom of all Australians to practice their culture and religion;
that provide equal access and opportunity for all Australians to participate fully in the country's economic, social, cultural and political life;
that highlight the responsibility of all Australians to commit to the democratic system and respect the rights of all individuals"

Excuse me, these aren't the "principles of multiculturalism".
They're the principles of liberalism and democracy.

Can Australians "practice their own culture" if it ceases to exist?

Rainier: "Only 18% of the world's population are white".
So? The percentage in Australia isn't, for the very reasons Dresdener pointed out: Whites built it.
I think you'll find a majority racial group in *every* country on Earth.
And, strange thing, each of those "racial" groups corresponds to a "cultural" group! How odd!

White urban ghettos? Ghettos for the majority?
Ironically, it's beginning to happen.
You *will* see ghettos of white people one day, seething with anger, plotting terrorist attacks.
What a future. Hooray for MC!

Logic: "the locals should be encouraged to understand legitimate customs of the new arrivals".
Why? Did I move into *their* country?
The only culture I *need* to understand is my own.

xoddam: "us and them" situation exists a priori across national boundaries and those of colour and creed.
Multiculturalism is the radical proposition that we should recognise the humanity of people belonging to other cultures.
Anyone rejecting that proposition is a misanthrope."

"Us and them" will exist as long as there are "people like me" and "people not like me", which of course will be forever!

MC perversely says you can be "us" and "them" simultaneously!
MC is "misanthropic" as it opposes human instincts.

So shockadelic, how do you explain south aftica before aparthied was disbanded?

You are amazingly ignorant and stupid and thats very rare.

Shockadelic resigns himself to "constant misinterpretation and contemptuous bullying by FrankGol".

FrankGol says: Huh? What's he on? Wasn't Shocker the guy who insisted I answer to him even after I said I was wasting my time? Is the theory true that the bullied really ask for it?

I've decided finally that Shocker is a closet multiculturalist. Tom Calma espouses the principles of multiculturalism and Shocker says:"... these aren't the 'principles of multiculturalism'. They're the principles of liberalism and democracy." Out of the mouth of babes...

Now Shocker makes another profound discovery: "Can Australians 'practice their own culture' if it ceases to exist?" Look out Australia, there's been a palace revolution. Australian culture ceased to exist last night. Perhaps The Chaser Team stole it for OPEC, or was that Georgie's Austria?

The many faces of Shocker:

Shocker the futurologist: "White urban ghettos? Ghettos for the majority? Ironically, it's beginning to happen. You *will* see ghettos of white people one day, seething with anger, plotting terrorist attacks." Bugger the law, eh Shocker? If those blacks get into power, let's smash 'em. How about we try and conquer South Africa again? That might be easier than trying to rescue Australia from the blacks, eh?.

Shocker the tolerant: "The only culture I *need* to understand is my own."

Shocker the paradoxocologist: "MC perversely says you can be 'us' and 'them' simultaneously! MC is 'misanthropic' as it opposes human instincts."

Shocker the victim: This contemptuous bullying by FrankGol.

I know it's Friday night Shocker but can you please settle down. ASIO is worried about that Canadian flag at the Intercontinental.

Rainier, you are amazingly rude!

As to South Africa:
1. We are discussing Australia.
2. Who is ruling South Africa now?
A racial/cultural majority!
The apartheid years were a brief historical aberration.
3. Southern Africa was first "united" by the genocidal Shaka Zulu who killed *two million* other Africans.
Don't kid yourself that only whites are villians in African history.

FrankGol? Should I even bother?

I'm a "closet multiculturalist"?
No, I'm an out-of-the-closet liberal (small "L").

The "principles of multiculturalism" didn't exist for *centuries* in liberal democracies?
They just appeared out of thin air a few decades ago!

"Australian culture ceased to exist last night."

I repeat: Can Australians 'practice their own culture' *if* it ceases to exist?
"If", Frank, I said "if". It means possibility, not actuality.

"Shocker the futurologist:
Bugger the law. If those blacks get into power, let's smash 'em. How about we try and conquer South Africa again?"

A description of something (future white terrorism) isn't an *endorsement* of it.

I have no interest in conquering anybody's territory, only protecting my own.

When did this discussion become about "blacks" and South Africa?
Oh, if I'm against multiculturalism, I must be in favour of racism, segregation, genocide, etc.
Of course.

"Shocker the tolerant: "The only culture I *need* to understand is my own.""

Note emphasis on *need*.
If I don't live in France or plan on travelling there, do I *need* to understand their culture?
I can *choose* to, but I don't *need* to.

"Shocker the paradoxocologist":
MC pretends simultanously that we are all "us" (Australians) but also "them" (Italians, Japanese, Turks).

"Australian" is a national/cultural identity.
So are "Italian", "Japanese" and "Turk". Nations *and* cultures.

Can one be *truly* two national/cultural identities?
Not superficially or peripherally, but 100% both.
Simultaneously!
Is this not a paradox?

"Shocker the victim"
Well, it took less than 2 hours for you to smell blood in the water, yet oddly you "didn't have the time" to finish another debate and it looks like you'll do your usual card tricks here.

No answers. No real critique. Just condescension.

Shoka, so just what is your so called culture? do you share this exact culture with every white Australian? What are its customs and traditions?

In your white fantasy world of having a distinct culture you like to think you share in a concept of cultural nationalism as a space structured around this amorhous White culture where Aboriginal people and non-White ‘ethnics’ are merely national objects to be moved (or removed) according to a White national will.

Its a fantasy you want everyone here to believe. Why?

Without it you would not exist as you think you do now.

You would have to admit that you have absolutely no control over MC.

Welcome to the REAL work.

I hope that on day you have the courage to pull your your head out of your backside before you implode with self delusional racist hubris.

If only FrankGol would stop being such a bully, and Rainier would stop being so rude, then racist fools like Shocker could get on with their ethnic cleansing fantasies in peace.

Ignorant, stupid, racist.

Yawn!

Rainier, you live in Australia.
I have to explain to you what our culture is?
Are you a 6 year old in primary school? "Sir, what's culture?"

Foreign cultural elements are not distinctly Australian.
There are "Chinatowns" in London, New York, Paris.

*Originally*, even what became "Australian" was foreign.
It was British.

But that developed, the settlers became the majority (and still are), and uniquely Australian cultural phenomena appeared, like calling everybody "mate".
(You won't hear that in Britain, will you?)

"Cultural nationalism" isn't a fantasy, nor even a specifically "white" concept.

It is the norm throughout history, all over the world, regardless of race.
Aberrations from this norm don't last long.

The Soviet Union crumbled partly because of the distinct cultural groups within it.
They soon reasserted their "cultural nationalism" as Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, with borders on maps to prove it.

"Without it you would not exist as you think you do now". Exactly!

Learning about the culture you live in is an experiential, unstoppable process from birth onwards, but it's no fantasy.

It creates your whole reality, even if you question or rebel against certain aspects of it.

You think you can artificially "dictate" culture from above, ignoring the real history of real people.

"You have absolutely no control over MC".
Precisely why it is illiberal and undemocratic.
You just proved my point.

CJ Morgan: A liberal condoning ethnic cleansing?
To quote Rainier: "You are amazingly ignorant and stupid".

From my undertanding of history, it's "true believers" like you watermelons who do all the killing.

Watermelonism.
Definition: An incoherent, contradictory, mishmash of green, leftist and politically correct ideologies, which may originally have had some validity but are now a dogmatic orthodoxy, a religion masquerading as politics.
Any oppostion is attacked as "evil", "false", "wrong", "stupid", even if alternatives have reasonable grounds.

The only reason I'm still alive is because the watermelons don't have the authority to kill me.

CJ, Rainier and FrankGol: Attack often and harshly enough and I'll just go away?
There's your "fantasy", Rainier.

Great to see all the same suspects churning out more of the same. Paul is also here using his favourite stop gap: telling someone with another opinion to leave Australia.

By the way, I'm one of the carefully selected migrants and know the process well. Sadly very, very many Australian born citizens would not make the grade if they had to apply for citizenship.

Very, very many Australian born citizens are incapable of explaining our system of government, have absolutely no knowledge of our constitution or the importance of having a constitution and do not understand what Federalism is all about. Very, very many Australian born citizens have no knowledge of her history other than some vague explorer stories of the Burke and Wills type. The majority of new Australians on the other hand do.

Perhaps we should have a two-tier citizenship. Those who are allowed to vote and participate in our political process and those who are not. The migrant selection process and citizenship process would be an admirable method to select class A (voting eligible) citizens. Anybody who doesn't pass would be a non-voting Class B citizen. Unfortunately they wouldn't be able to be sent away anywhere being born and bred here. We'll just have to put up with this rabble.

Australia is the best country to live in. We have a vibrant, stimulating society open to many different ideas and ways of looking at how to live good productive lives. We do not have a stagnant monolithic monoculture. People like myself know, we have experienced alternatives.

Being free to acknowledge your own cultural background openly and proudly does not equate with being unpatriotic to Australia. It would be good for Australians to learn more about what really makes this nation what it is, her system of government and political process, her legal system, her history. Then there would not be this inordinate fear of 'other' cultures.

Geez! Slic; I'm awed by the dictionaries you people quote from.

They're worth every bit of the 50 cents you paid for them.

Rainier, you previously quoted from a government fact sheet about immigration statistics:
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/02key.htm

The data shows *exactly* why many Australians oppose our recent immigration policy.

There are more than double the number of migrants from Asia compared with the UK.
*Double*!

But the UK is our original cultural homeland, and Asia has no cultural connection at all.

Tally it up:
Oceania (mostly NZ), Europe (mostly UK) and the Americas are only 43.7% of the total.

*Less than half* are from related Western cultures!

And you wonder why we're scared our culture won't survive.
Who's going to perpetuate it in the future?

But then, you deny we even *have* a culture, so I guess you can't answer that.

Now, how about a hypothetical conspiracy theory:
Does it ever occur to you watermelons that you might be being *used* as pawns.

Do you think that once Western liberal democracies have been so destabilised by multicultural immigration that they no longer know who they are, that *your* agenda will prevail?

Please! Once the chaos reaches boiling point, a religious dictatorship steps in and crushes *all* human culture, including my decadent liberalism, your watermelonism and ethnic cultures too.

You can't impose a global religious dictatorship if every nation still knows and wants its own identity.

You must crush these first, or the people will reject the dictatorship.

However, people will accept it, if they no longer know what their culture is, and are so sick of the chaos, anything is a better option, even religious dictatorship.

It doesn't even matter whether the dictatorship is Christian or Muslim, the end result will be the same:
The death of liberty and any real human culture.

Yes, it's "crazy".
If I'm wrong, no big deal. But what if I'm not?

Wake up, puppets. I'm not your real enemy.
You should be glad there still are people like me.
It means we still have the freedom to dissent.

Another multicultural thread where the theorist argue the idealism and the realist arguing the facts at ground level. In theory everyone get to practice and have their 'culture' acknowledged. In fact it becomes social manipulation by special interest and government lobby and 'cultural' and 'ethnic' exceptions to the rules and social expectations that should apply to all equally with out exception. But in lieu of that true society we end up with a plethora of "the Ethnic Communities Council of(insert your place name here)", as we have.
MC does not promote a unified social structure. As each 'culture' or 'ethnicity' enters the society another fracture tears along lines of 'culture' and 'ethnicity'.
The definition of a society is; An extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization.
The definition of a multicultural society is; An extended multi-ethnicity of cultural enclaves struggling for acknowledgment and special considerations based on that 'ethnicity' or 'culture'.
For those of us who have seen the movie, Dark City, we know that sometimes the tuning doesn't take and some of us become aware of the manipulation and spin. For a more realistic understanding of the manipulation I suggest the book, Trust Us, We're Experts, by Stauber & Rampton. The following link will take you to a related article on just how we are being manipulated into believing that the no thing is more valuable.

http://www.rense.com/general12/believe.htm

Interesting dictionary. Now on special for 20 cents.

I thought this was interesting:-

Paddymelons: thick-skinned, embittered Right-Whingers, who obsess about Race, and continually warn others of the dire consequences of not embracing their views. It is believed that this group were spawned from the principle of believing all they hear from those they see as born to lead them.

“I'm a "closet multiculturalist"?
No, I'm an out-of-the-closet liberal (small "L").
The "principles of multiculturalism" didn't exist for *centuries* in liberal democracies?
They just appeared out of thin air a few decades ago!”

Oh come now, as a so called liberal you should know that the fundamental basis of our liberal democracy has withstood numerous periods of conflict in Australia. 19th century politics was characterized by protestant and catholic rivalry and the perceived riotousness in either political party’s belief, not to mention our socialist period where class conflict and the struggle between labor and capital threatened to erode liberalism all together.
Were lucky in Australia to have entrenched political and legal institutions, it’s the difference between a failed state which has succumbed to these fundamental conflicts flanked by religion, race, class conflict, labor and capital etc etc.. Ultimately any abhorrent ideas you might associate with multiculturalism will be resolved so don’t worry son.

Anyway Multiculturalism is essentially based on a liberalist ideal i.e. pluralism; Liberalism offers the opportunity, under a state indifferent to the ways or the goals of the different peoples living under the law, for people to coexist and for their different arts, stories, sciences to flourish or die out with them. It offers this not because the laws grant other cultures or communities recognition, but because the laws are silent and as long as individuals or a community adheres to the rule of law I really don’t see a perceived problem with multiculturalism and statements such as;

“Please! Once the chaos reaches boiling point, a religious dictatorship steps in and crushes *all* human culture, including my decadent liberalism, your watermelonism and ethnic cultures too..”
Are completely unfounded and incite fear mongering

Where you totolly miss the point is that you are not the first person that I've debated on this topic. In fact I've lost count.

What is universal in all your responses (including yours) is a lack of historical knowledge about this country, the world and especially how liberal democracy came about, its origins and principles.

I don't have to time (or indeed the inclination) to give you a potted history of where and how international laws impacted on domestic policy or how and why Australian adopted a policy of MC.

You're punching way above your intellectual weight shoka.

Do some study,(meaning do some primary research) think more deeply and i honestly hope you'll grow a brain and a heart from doing this.

I'm off to play with more erudite posters elsewhere.

Ciao!

"Rose Wars: A New Hope"

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away....

Was a planet with three kingdoms: Roseania, Unthornia, and Elitia.

For thousands of years, Roseania and Unthornia didn't know of each other's existence as they were on opposite sides of the planet.

Roseanians believed roses symbolised perfection and goodness.
Their God wore a crown of roses.
Every home had a rose garden in the front yard.

Unthornians believed any plant with thorns could only be the work of the evil demon king Riptoxus, who wore a crown of roses.
They thought the fragrance a trick, a lure to make them commit sins.
Roses were prohibited and destroyed wherever they grew wild.

Elitians (aware of the other two kingdoms) developed a sophisticated concept called "multiculturalism".
They thought people could live together whatever their beliefs about roses.

Many Elitians were sceptical, but their leaders just said they were ignorant and stupid.

The Elitian government invited Roseanians and Unthornians to live with them.
Many accepted the offer, as Elitia was richer and safer than their homelands.

Roseanians and Unthornians soon found themselves living in the same towns, in the same streets.

Roseanians planted roses in their front yards.
Unthornians destroyed them.

Roseanians took the Unthornians to court claiming suppression of their cultural rights. And won.
So Roseanians kept planting roses.

Unthornians took the Roseanians to court claiming suppression of their cultural rights. And won.
Unthornians kept destroying roses, gladly paying the tiny property damage fines.
"A small price to pay to be free of those evil plants", said their elders.

Tensions escalated: riots, arson, and murder became commonplace.

News of these hostilities in their homelands made the two kingdoms bitter enemies.

They also resented Elitia for fostering such strife in the first place.

Due to distance, no direct war was ever waged, but numerous sporadic terrorist bombings occurred in all three kingdoms for centuries.

Eventually, Unthornian scientists developed a biological weapon that would kill only roses.

Unleashing it into the atmosphere, the bacteria unexpectedly mutated and killed all lifeforms on the planet.

The End

Shockadelic

zzzzzzzzzzzzz... oh sorry, were you saying something?

Only 8 minutes to respond that time. You *do* have a pulse!
And I thought you were "too busy".

I'd like to see you come up with a myth or legend demonstrating the benefits of Multiculturaldictatorship.

But then, you can't understand symbolic language, as I recall.

Yvonne,
I guess you would list me as one of the usual suspects that put the case against MC whenever a thread comes up. I will continue to do so because MC is detrimental to our society and i want our future generations to have a cohesive community.

You mentioned citizenship. My wife obtained citizenship not long ago and it was easy, too bloody easy and I'm glad we now have a longer period to qualify and at least some sort of a test.

If, as you say, many Australian born would not pass the new test for citizenship, then I blame that squarely on MC as our history and social studies have been seriously neglected for the past 35 years since the educators got on the MC bandwaggon. I recently asked a very bright 11 year old girl, from Melbourne, some basic questions about early Melbourne settlement and the Victorian government and she could not answer. She said they were not taught these types of things. They obviously spend much time on global things, cultural diversity and how we should be tolerant of alien cultures.

Hopefully this will all change with the demise of MC and our history and social studies will be concentrated on much more.

Conflict will continue as long as we continue to import people of alien cultures that will not compromise their views to fit in with the rest of the community. I'm afraid the new integration policy will also fail if we continue to allow people to come here that have a record of no respect for others or our laws and social standards.

If there are better places to be Yvonne, why wouldn’t you go there? Why migrate here. I mean it must be hard living with all of us long weekend loving, sports mad education haters. They were your words weren’t’ they?

I get annoyed when the cultural cringe brigade start rehashing the same old garbage about how we should be more like the ‘cultured’ Europeans. Frankly they misunderstand both societies when they make such comparisons.

I am not sure how you think it is relevant that a migrant can take an exam on Australian history and politics and do better than many Aussies. But Banjo is spot on when he says that the political correctness movement has hijacked the history curriculum, moving it away from teaching kids about such things.

“Being free to acknowledge your own cultural background openly does not equate with being unpatriotic ...” I agree. The problem arises when you decide that you’re going to behave as if you never left home. There are migrants who come here who hate western values, yet migrate anyway because they know that they can continue to live as they please, whilst taking all of the benefits of living in a free and wealthy society.

What is wrong with taking only those migrants who actually want to become Aussies? I don’t care what colour their skin is, or what religion they are. If they can embrace Australian values like liberalism, secularism, rule of law, equality etc and they want to become part of our community, I welcome them.

But anyone who feels that they couldn’t mix with Australians have no business migrating here.

Assimilation doesn’t mean racism no matter how much you pretend it is so. People are free to celebrate their history as long as they are prepared to fully integrate with our community in the end.

The idea is that you become an Australian with XYZ heritage rather than a XYZ Australian. It’s only a subtle difference but it returns the emphasis to a sense of all being part of one society, rather than encouraging multiple disparate societies

"If there are better places to be Yvonne, why wouldn’t you go there?" (Quote:PaulL)

Ah! how the clichés are trotted out by the usual suspects.

...and the beat goes on....

Paul, you’re such a silly person. I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post:

‘Australia is the best country to live in. …… we’ve experienced alternatives’. Why on Earth would I want to leave??

Do stop the boring ‘leave’ Australia. This is a democracy, people are allowed to have a different opinion to yours. Why don’t you move to a totalitarian state of your choosing?

Banjo, I agree with you that more available education on application of citizenship would be great. But let me tell you it has improved out of sight. I arrived here in 1975. If you think obtaining citizenship is easy now, back then it was a mere formality. If you made the grade jumping through the many hoops over a lengthy period of time on education, skills, and health for immigration, you were assumed to be OK.

Many of my friends are in my age group, late 40’s to late 50’s. Educated in Australia pre MC, many highly qualified professionals. I’m sorry to report to you that their knowledge is poor.

When I arrived in Australia way back then (1975), I was amazed to discover the OVERWHELMING apathy on anything political or ANY interest to learn or know anything about Australian history, culture or government systems. The mantra back then, which I found baffling, was: Australia has no culture and little history something that has to do with convicts on which we’d rather not dwell. The cringe factor was not just a factor, it was normal body language on anything to do with this country.

Thank goodness, that has made a 180 degree turn around, because it was embarrassing. Just look at many of you now. Suddenly Australians are acknowledging there is a culture after all! That is what MC has done. Many of you started to examine your own heritages, see others and look at Australia’s history. Australia is still the best, most open society in the world. It is not comparable to any European or Asian nation. We are all our own, neither European, neither Asian, neither African, we’re Australian.

yvonne,
I do not think our views are as far apart as we both thought.

My schooling took place in the 50s and our history was nearly all Australian and it was only in high school that we got onto overseas and world history. One could not pass any history exam if you did not know Blaxland, Lawson and Wentworth crossed the Blue Mountains in 1813 (I think) and the ramifacations of this. I think the government will give aspiring citizens all the infomation with which to pass the test. I just hope our educators will do much more on our history and system of governance.

I note that more information will now be given to prospective migrants which should enable them to make better decisions as to whether Australia is for them. If they can see things of serious cultural/religoua conflict, it may be better for them not to come here.

Yes, there was a long period of cultural cringe, but I found that mostly from the academics and the arty crowd. Your arrival was after we had been brow beaten about MC and virtually told we had no culture.

You could be right about MC making us consider our own culture more. If so it is one good thing MC has given, but I am not quite ready to concede that just yet. More thought required.

I hope the new policy of integration will give us the cohesion that MC failed to do. Perhaps it was the way MC was implemented.

Banjo, Australia was not brow beaten on MC in 1975. It was in its infancy. Whitlam, ousted in November 1975, was not in office long enough to create a massive turn around of cultural perspectives.

I had no contact with academics or the 'arty' crowd. I lived in the very middle class Anglo Saxon Eastern suburbs of Melbourne. I was the most exotic thing most of my new friends had encountered.

To divide Australians into 'academics' and 'non-academics' or 'arty types' and 'non-arty' types is in itself curious. Education, the search of knowledge and research are not unpatriotic pursuits. Neither is the pursuit of art. Culture also includes art and knowledge. This is another type of cringe factor.

Australia has produced a singularly impressive number of important inventions and discoveries. For a relatively small number of people we are up there with innovations and ideas. The rest of the world appreciates it even if many Australians don't.

Australian culture and history is not only about trekking through this vast continent on camels. It is not only about 'battlers' who are good mates through thick and thin. It is also about that engineering marvel the Snowy Mountains hydro electric Scheme, the combine harvester, the bionic ear or the cause of stomach ulcers, to name but a very few.

Now we are proud of who we are. Maybe we can now also stop cringing about Australian academics and our universities and acknowledge the wealth of expertise we have. Like Australian culture and lifestyle previously, these are still only mainly appreciated by others.

Now, why is it that Australia is such an innovative place that produces so much do you think? I think it is because we are not bogged down with deeply held class structures and codes of specific behaviour that exist in ponderous, old slow moving monocultures.

Australians are open, curious and not nearly as judgmental as people in many other places. Though, when reading some of these threads, I fear that there are moves afoot to destroy this truly Australian value.

Dorothy the feminist found herself in a strange land, following a storm called Multiculturalism.

"I don't think we're in Western Civilisation anymore" she said to her dog Toto.

Skipping down the road, she saw a stranger.

"Hello, I'm Dorothy the feminist.
I don't have a brain. I lost it in the storm.
So I'm off to see The Wizard Of Anti-Discrimination, who I've heard helps minorities.
Who are you, friend?"

"I'm Ali, a Muslim cleric. And I don't have a heart."

"Oh dear." said Dorothy, "Would you like to join me?
Maybe the Wizard can help your minority too."

"Okay, but you'll have to cover your head" said Ali.

"Jiminy Crickets!
What an odd request!" said Dorothy.
"Well, alright. I guess I need all the friends I can get right now."

So Dorothy the feminist and Ali the Muslim cleric skipped arm in arm down the road.

Suddenly, in cloud of smoke, a Witch appeared.

"Don't be fooled by him, my pretty.
He'll only be your friend while he needs you.
When he gets enough political power, he'll throw you away like a pair of old slippers!" said the Witch.

"Don't listen to that mean old witch." said Dorothy.

"Fetch me a bucket of water." said Ali.

"I'm not your servant, Ali.
And what's the magic word?" said Dorothy.

"NOW!" said Ali.

"Ooh, you aren't being very nice at all!
I don't think I want to be your friend anymore." said Dorothy.

"Told you so." said the Witch.

Just then a creaking noise startled them.
It was a Tin God.

"Help me Dorothy, the storm rusted me.
I can't move to the left. I can't move to the right.
Whatever I do, I'll offend somebody."

"He doesn't have any courage" said the Witch.
"Tin Gods started the storm that destroyed your home!".

"There's no place like home, I wish I could go back" said Dorothy.

"Come with me, Dorothy." said the Witch.
You don't need the Wizard. You've had a brain all along!"

So Dorothy joined the Witch's coven and found her brain again.

Poor Ali still had no heart.

Don't quit your day job, Shockadelic.

Look at moe! Look at moe!

Poor old Slic.

Just because you supposedly support an "enlightened" belief doesn't mean *you* are enlightened.

Pavlov's dog could be trained to appear "enlightened".
One bark means multicultural. Two barks means racist.
Doesn't mean he's SuperDog, smartest dog in the universe.

And the snobby "50 cent dictionary" "Look at moe" comments?
Showing you true elitist colours there, Ginx.
Only rich people like you deserve to breathe, eh Ginx?

Do you really think you're winning any converts to *your* side displaying such attitudes?

I hear my fan base growing with every slap in the face.
Keep slapping and I'll rule the country one day.
Vote 1, Slic For President.

I seem to have a different recollection about the introduction of MC than you. It was introduced by the Whitlam government and the Fraser government continued on with the implementation of the policy.

I suppose you could say that 'brow beaten' is not correct in that we had no choice. We were simply told MC was the new policy and how wonderfull it was going to be with children in colourful costumes, folk dancing, dragon parades, beer festivals and many new foods to try. Nothing at all was said about some of the alien cultural practices, and hatreds, that would come with some cultures. We were the ones that had to compromise and be tolerant to accomodate these alien cultures. Nor were we told of the millions of dollars that was to be spent in promoting foreign national cultures or the vast industry that was to be built up to support MC.

I do not divide Australians into groups. I simply mention that there are different groups and in my circles, mostly blue color workers, there was pride in our country, acheivements of all types and our unique culture. It was the academics and the arty types that were constantly whinging and apologising for our supposed inadequacies. And yes they even claimed we had no culture.

I can tell you why Australians are so inovative and self reliant. Our early settlers had to be to survive in such a different enviroment. Those that could not adapt left our shores to go back to Europe or elsewhere.

If MC was so good, it still would not be debated. After 35 years any real advantages should now be obvious, but there arn't any, only problems. Let us hope that the new policy of integration will be more beneficial to our community.

Sorry yvonne,
I seem to have missed addressing you at the beginning of my last post. No offence intended.

Not logical, Banjo.

>>If MC was so good, it still would not be debated<<

That's about as meaningful as asking if Hitler was so evil, why are there still gangs of Nazis hanging around?

http://www.aryan-nations.org/

In my view, the only reason multiculturalism is still an issue is that it is a handy peg upon which to hang a xenophobe hat. Or even, at base, a mysogynist one. At the very least, a NIMBY one.

Multiculturalism could be the best thing since sliced bread, but there would still be people who feel themselves as being disadvantaged by it. Even when sliced bread itself was introduced, I'm sure there were many bakers who believed that it was the devil's work (bring back the real crusty loaf!) and campaigned against it to their last breath. Didn't stop sliced bread from becoming the last best thing though, did it?

As it stands, we have been led for the past umpteen years by the country's arch-enemy of multiculturalism, which has perhaps lent a level of unearned credibility to its opponents. If and when we are led by someone with greater compassion and understanding than the throwback of a 1950's suburban solicitor we have at the moment, perhaps we can have a less "us and them" debate.

pericles,
Disagree, its quite a reasonable statement. After 35 years and millions of dollars spent one would think the advantages and benefits of MC would be so obvious that there would be no debate. But no, its the most debated topic on OLO. By now there should be a whole list, other than food variety, of benefits that the pro MC lobby could point to. But they don't or cannot. Even in this article, supposedly arguing the retention of MC, the author fails to put forward any benefits of MC.

Yet those opposed to MC can point to a host of problems and alien aspects of some cultures and frequently do. I get sick of listing them.

The pro MC lobby reply with personal attacks of racist, xenophobia, NIMBY, bigot and so on. None put forward tangible reasons to retain MC. Posters like Morgan, Frank Gol and Ginst simply try smart arse remarks. Rainier is the only pro MC poster that has even been gracious enough to acknowledge that the hatreds and anti social behaviour of some ethnic groups is cause for problems.

Yvonne once said that it would be bad if MC was conducted along nationalistic lines and yet that is exactly what has happened. The community is split along ethnic/foreign national lines. No unity in that.

The foundations of MC is that all groups respect all others, but the wheels fall off when one or more groups fail to show respect for others. Generally Aussies have played their part, it has failed because of the actions of some ethnic groups.

I acknowledge that those that implemented MC may have had good intentions and the polys kept it going to chase the 'ethnic vote', but the time has really come to change strategy

The debate about multiculturalism continues after all this time for several good reasons.

It's partly because the policy of multiculturalism is mistaken for immigration policy. And most opponents of multiculturalism are really opposed to immigration from non-English speaking countries.

Secondly, many opponents of multiculturalism reduce culture to a single factor - ethnicity - ignoring the wide range of other determiners of culture. In turn they reduce ethnicity to that which is identified only with non-English speaking communities. Ironically, anti-multiculturalists are the first to whinge that Anglo-Celtic-Australians are omitted from the multicultural landscape (ignoring the absolute dominance of Anglo-Celtic-Australians in our multicultural society).

Thirdly, it must be said that culture is not the only factor influencing human behaviour, i.e. any individual will be influenced by their culture, but need not be a slave to the culture. Anyway, general ‘dimensions’ of culture may not necessarily be reflected in the behaviour of each individual from that culture because culture and identity are multi-faceted - influenced by many life experiences and affilitaions, e.g. age, sex, educational level, social status (income, employment), religion, language, family history (whether rural or urban, the immigration experience and how long in the country), as well as abilities and personal traits. That's why it's more likely that a doctor from India will have more in common with a doctor born in Australia than with an Indian labourer, for example.

Finally, our multicultural society is democratic and dynamic with negotiations going on all the time. Negotiations take place at all levels - individually (e.g. how much do you want to be seen as a Greek-Australian, as a female Greek-Australian by your friends and acquaintances etc.), in families (parents may make demands but you decide), in schools an other institutions and nationally.

Posters who can't get their head around these complexities often tilt at windmills blaming multiculturalism for all sorts of imagined ills.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz... oh sorry, were you saying something Frank?

It's strange how the advocates of MC go on endlessly about how immaterial MC is while failing to answer to the numerous ethnic and cultural councils dotting the Australian political landscape and the existence of a federation of Australian ethnic communities councils who's main page states it's function as being, "The Federation monitors a wide range of issues including: social welfare; employment; language policy and immigration. In undertaking this work, FECCA monitors a wide range of issues including:

* Government and Opposition policy positions
* Access and equity issues
* The media
* cultural institutions;
* community harmony;
* social welfare and justice;
* health services;
* immigration, refugee issues and citizenship;
* racism, and
* youth and women’s issues.

The government has agencies managing and monitoring these. Any observer can plainly see such ethnic and cultural councils as another layer of government and not a benign ethnic wardrobe and dance affiliation. If, as some like to suggest, that there is no 'real' working essence to MC. Then why the duplication of effort on behalf of ethnicity and culture? MC is government policy! Why the need for ethnic and cultural watchdogs if they have no 'real' teeth? And who's actually dumb enough to believe they exist absent of influence in government policy and direction

FrankGol

I don’t think you are right when you say that most of the anti-multiculturalists really are anti-immigration. No doubt there are plenty who are. But tarring us all with the same brush is a cheap tactic. No doubt there are just as many people who support MC because they like Chinese food or because they want a larger population for their products.

Only the minority are racists. The large and mostly silent majority are not impressed by the failure of MC to live up to its promises.

You make my point very well. I totally agree that people of any race, religion or ethnic background should have the opportunity to migrate to Australia. Individuals do make their own negotiations. My only proviso would be that they want to become Aussies. What I mean by that is that they want to become an integral part of our community and respect the values of secularism, liberal democracy, rule of law, equality, in fact all the basics of living in a western democracy. This would entail a willingness to learn our culture and language.

Australians who are anti MC are generally most upset that we have guests in our country who, at best, look down on our culture and traditions and have no intention of integrating with us. They have come to our country because MC permits them, in fact encourages them, to live their lives as if they never left home.

I agree we need to be tolerant and accepting of others cultures. But this does not mean we should value all cultures as equally appropriate for living in THIS country. MC hasn’t created a better Australia by removing the divisions along cultural divides. By merely extending the idea of what it is to be Australian to cover ANYBODY, which is what multiculturalism did you have just legitimized this divide.

Migrants should be Australian first, and then recognise their background later. Ie an Australian with Greek heritage rather than a Greek Australian. I don’t think that is too much to ask, and has the added bonus of bringing us closer together.

Tribal instincts seem to be a common human genetic trait.
People seem to cling to the past, but change is certain.
The pope wants more little Catholics, some whites want
more little whites etc, all very primitive instincts.

I see the many positives of a genetic potpourri. Genetic
diversity within a population has huge advantages!

So perhaps Australians will land up in general
yellowish-light brown is skin colour. So what?

Look at say Barack Obama, a product of a genetic
potpourri. Is he such a liability to his country?

What about those beautiful and intelligent Eurasians?

The bottom line is that once people get over their
tribal instincts, a genetic potpourri can have
enormous advantages. Perhaps that is what will
define future Australians. So be it!

aqvarivs

Notice how easily you elide 'ethnicity' and 'culture' - four times no less? They are different. Moreover the mere existence of 'ethnic and cultural councils' does not render them 'another layer of government' any more than a national network of RSL branches makes them another layer of government.

Paul.L

You say: 'I don’t think you are right when you say that most of the anti-multiculturalists really are anti-immigration...But tarring us all with the same brush is a cheap tactic.' Another false elision - my 'most' becomes 'all' to you. 'Most' and 'all' are significantly different, so whose 'cheap tactic'?

You say: 'The large and mostly silent majority are not impressed by the failure of MC to live up to its promises.' Multiculturalism is a policy. Only people make promises, so any failure is the responsibility of people. Has democracy 'failed to live up to its promises'? If so...what follows?

I agree with you that immigrants should 'want to become an integral part of our community and respect the values of secularism, liberal democracy, rule of law, equality...all the basics of living in a western democracy. This would entail a willingness to learn our culture and language.' I know of no multicultural policy that opposes that view, do you?

If, as you say, 'we have guests in our country who, at best, look down on our culture and traditions and have no intention of integrating with us', they are foolish. However, you wrongly argue that 'They have come to our country because MC permits them, in fact encourages them, to live their lives as if they never left home.' Immigration policy permitted them to come to this country. Multiculturalism encourages them to integrate.

I agree with you that not all cultural practices are equal. Australian law rightly outlaws some - and multicultural policy is rooted in respect for Australian law.

I respect your preference for 'Australian with Greek heritage' over 'Greek Australian'. Not much hinges on it. They both acknowledge that Australians come from many different origins and the diverse blend has been remarkably free from conflict.

The long history of obsession with the idea of creating and preserving a mainstream 'Anglo' culture has always been a ridiculous goal and a claim that it could ever truly be achieved is equally ridiculous.

Trawling through the posts here it’s clear that many want to hold on to this silly goal.

I've called it a white fantasy elsewhere, but I'm sure it has other characteristics.

The official policy towards immigrants up until the 1970's was 'assimilation' and from this sprung that phrase 'new Australian'.

This reminds me of that startling finding by a news poll at the height of One Nation and Pauline Pantsdown juggernaut. It found that more than 70 % of Australians supported MC.

As if a minority section of the 21 Million people who populate this continent can truly believe that they (holding their Aussie flags and beer coolers) can hold back the tide of ethno-globalism that is already upon us.

Are those pigs I see flying over there…?

"We're in uncharted waters now, Captain" said the First Mate.
"The lookout has reported seeing icebergs."

"Icebergs!" scoffed the Captain of the SS Watermelon.
"This ship is unsinkable!
Full steam ahead!"

FrankGol, “Notice how easily you elide 'ethnicity' and 'culture' - four times no less? “ Please show me where I left out 'ethnicity' and 'culture' - four times no less? Please, if you don't know the value of a word don't use it. The word elide means to suppress or alter, to strike out, to leave out of consideration.

FrankGol, “They are different. “ Ethnicity is an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties. While culture is the attitudes and behaviour that are characteristic of a particular social group including those behaviors directly relating to or including ethnicity and or religion. Not different. Included.

FrankGol, “the mere existence of 'ethnic and cultural councils' does not render them 'another layer of government' any more than a national network of RSL branches makes them another layer of government.” In that your argument is semantics and word play, and states “the mere existence”,”does not render them another layer of government”. I agree. However as other posters may well read, what I actually posted does not include your special deconstruction to 'mere existence', rather a list of activities that are agency of the government. A list of agency that does not require duplication by an ethnic and cultural council to effect such services that are not ethnic nor culturally specific. Where as your inclusion of the RSL Branches and equating them with ethnicity and culture is determined misdirection. The RSL make no cultural or ethnic discrimination. You don't even have to be Australian to join. And the RSL does not duplicate any agency of government. But ethnic and cultural councils do. And they do it for each ethnicity and culture represented by such councils, not to forget the inclusion of the representation of religion.

aqvarivs

I apologise for over-estimating your English language comprehension. To 'elide' is indeed to omit - as in the omission of the letter o in isn't and don't, and the running together of two words as if they're one (another example for you). In this case I thought you might understand that you had omitted the difference between 'ethnicity' and 'culture'. While on English lessons, my Oxford Dictionary gives this meaning of 'elide': 'join together, merge'. So your error was in omitting the difference between two distinctly different words and merging their meanings.

Thank you for making my point clearer. The words 'ethnicity' and 'culture' are not a couplet. They bear different meanings and come from different derivatives.

Your semantic ploy is inadequate - to claim that 'ethnicity' is included in 'culture' is to say that the finger is part of the body but it's hard to kick a goal with just a finger. Justr as the human body is made up of many different organs, so culture is made up of and influenced by many more things than ethnicity.

As to your assertion about the power of ethnic and cultural councils, even if I agree that it is not their mere existence and accept your 'list of activities that are agency of the government', my position is still valid - they are not 'another layer of government'.

Please tell me what are the government services or powers that ethnic and cultural councils duplicate? Where would you rank these services and powers in the hierarchy of government decision-making in Australia? Are you including organisations run by people of Scottish and English background?

Frankgol, save your semantic game playing for those who think your clever. Your not. You reformat to suit your hypothesis and you can't even keep that straight. I'm not going to rewrite each post five times so you can make a non-point. You can not separate out ethnicity and culture, they develop from the same place and time.
Get a new dictionary.
"Any observer can plainly see such ethnic and cultural councils "AS" another layer of government" Is my actual statement. The implication of government or the wearing of that authority when speaking of matters of ethnicity and culture. And Frank, I'm talking about ethnic and culture councils period. I don't give a rats tooth who's ethnicity or culture. Save your reverse racism for the other racist who measure their worth by their numbers with in the national make up. We are all equal with one vote each. Observe your environment Frank. Why should any one get more than the any other based on cultural or ethnic considerations. Ethnic and cultural councils are about special considerations based on that ethnicity or culture. Nothing more. They are advocates for that ethnicity and culture. Unless your suggesting these councils dictate ethnicity and culture and with out them the myriad ethnicities and cultures would fail to exist. Tell us Frank does all ethnicity and culture emit from these councils. Give your head a shake and see things for what they are, not what you hope balances with your socialist utopia. Scroll up a couple of post the list of duplication is in plain english.

One day Henny-penny was picking up corn in the cornyard when–whack!– something hit her upon the head. “Goodness gracious me!” said Henny- penny; “the sky’s a-going to fall; I must go and tell the king.”

Wow Rainier, You do know your stuff. Got any other nursery rhymes. Dazzle us with quotes from shakespeare?

If anyone need reminding - it is the far left, and more recently the soft left, who are squealing that the sky is falling. The tyrant Bush is ruling his evil kingdom inventing enemies as he goes. The lackey Howard is spellbound. Both of them are planning the devastation of our environment.

Oh, and APEC is the coordinating organisation for GLOBAL DESTRUCTION, not a trade body.

You really are joking aren't you?

Anyone remember the boy who cried wolf?

aqvarivs

You say: 'You can not separate out ethnicity and culture, they develop from the same place and time.' If that's true then what about culture's connection with the following: gender, age, education, religion (or lack of it), employment, income, social class, migration experience, abilities, family history, involvement in war or civil upheaval?

All sociologists would argue that these elements have a bearing on culture. Ethnicity is but one element in cultural formation.

On semantics, telling me to get a new dictionary because you don't like the definition of a word you didn't understand is peurile. I use both the Oxford and Macquarie - highly reputable.

I see you ducked my challenge to show how 'ethnic and cultural councils' are (or can be seen to be) 'another layer of government'. And you managed to squeeze in an allegation of 'reverse racism' and 'socialist utopia' too. Nothing like a distracting distortion when you are losing your grip on the real issues.

I took up your suggestion to scroll up a couple of post to see your 'list of duplication is in plain english'. I see that your list is introduced with the rubric: 'The Federation monitors a wide range of issues including: social welfare; employment; language policy and immigration. In undertaking this work, FECCA monitors a wide range of issues...'

My dictionaries' definitions of the word 'monitor' don't run to duplication any more than the RSL's work in monitoring current defence matters makes the RSL a duplicate defence services.

FrankGol, Hit any online dictionary or flip through any printed dictionary and the word, elide, is defined as, to leave or strike out; to suppress or alter; omit; curtail; abridge. Usually in reference to the written word (as a vowel or syllable).
But, in your world, if you can make it mean the exact opposite or something completely different, good on ya!

I'm using culture as, -the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; I'm not discussing pop culture or those who think they have acquired culture by taking a walk through a museum. Or hair splitting to turn an argument.

I'm not alleging reverse racism. I am a witness to yours as in. “Are you including organisations run by people of Scottish and English background?” Your assuming my specific ethnicity or culture. That's racist. My post was about the many, many councils for ethnicity and culture, not a singular ethnicity or culture, and pointed out that their impact on governing was so large that a Federation of Councils has become necessary.

Yes, I noticed their use of the word monitor. I got a laugh out of that too but, I also know they advocate, exert influence, and are supported by tax dollars. If ethnicity and culture is just a benign happenstance, why the plethora of 'councils'? What need of a federation of councils? And why do all these ethnics and or cultures need to monitor government agencies? Are some ethnicities or cultures being withheld their rights under the constitution? Being withheld from voting. The areas they live in not having representation? Withheld access to social welfare, employment, courts and justice as citizens of Australia?

Yes, I say duplicated because under the title banner of “Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales” (for example) is “Supported by the Government of New South Wales through Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural NSW”. Making it a defacto agent of government. The trail of tax dollars follows:

1. Federal Government
2. State Government
3. Community Relations Commission
4. Ethnic Communities Council

aqvarivs,

You told me to ‘hit any online dictionary or flip through any printed dictionary and the word, elide, is defined as, to leave or strike out; to suppress or alter; omit; curtail; abridge…’

So I did and, yes, the word has the meaning you found. But, read on old chap.

Here’s the Compact Oxford Dictionary (both online and hard copy versions):
‘elide • verb 1 omit (a sound or syllable) when speaking. 2 join together; merge.’

The Oxford Dictionary - the standard setter for world dictionaries in the English language - hardly gives credibility to your claim that I don’t know when you are eliding ethnicity and culture. Not to mention your elision of the second meaning of ‘elide’.

But enough.

I see you are now conceding that culture is more than ethnicity: ‘I'm using culture as, - the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group…’

But I also see that my asking the question: ‘Are you including organisations run by people of Scottish and English background?’ makes me guilty of two sins in your mind. By the very asking of that question I am guilty of ‘reverse racism’. Moreover, to ask that question is to make an assumption about your ‘specific ethnicity or culture’. And that too is ‘racist’.

Racist? Reverse or forward, how so? I am not the least interested in your ethnicity or culture (or race for that matter). It’s totally irrelevant - as is mine. I asked the question to ascertain whether you were using the term ‘ethnicity’ in an inclusive way or excluding English-speaking ethnic groups.

Your weak argument about the power of ethnic groups just gets weaker. That the many councils should federate is no more sinister a strategy than the same employed by the State branches of the CWA or any other national lobby groups.

You laughed that ethnic groups ‘monitor’ but, these creatures presume to ‘…advocate, exert influence, and are supported by tax dollars.’ Just like the CWA, community arts groups, disabilities advocates and the RSL. Subversives all, eh?

"Subversives". No Frank, but I see it finally clicked for you. "Lobby group". My ORIGINAL POINT before you began to pontificate and use circular arguments to prop up your multiculturalism is no more than colourful hats and dance steps routine. I'm glad you now acknowledge that MC has become an aspect of Australian governing.
As for your sad, angry little wordplay and injecting words into others post to imply a negative is most puerile. Words like 'subversive' and 'creature' to inject your personal ugliness. Oh well. Can't solve all your issues in one night. That you finally acknowledge ethnic and cultural councils as lobby groups paid for by tax dollars is sufficient to the day.
Tomorrow we'll ask why, if the Constitution guarantees protection of the rights of all citizens, and all are equal under law, ethnicity and culture must be an issue of governance.

aqvarivs

Oh, so that's it. I get it. It's not being federated but being lobby groups - that is the problem with ethnic groups.

Now let's see, will you contact the National Farmers' Federation and tell them, or will I, that by being a lobby group you get to run the country as the fourth level of government? Who will contact the Children's Welfare Association and let them know they are supposed to be governing?

But wait, I think I'm still a bit confused. You say: 'I'm glad you now acknowledge [did I?] that MC has become an aspect of Australian governing.' And 'Tomorrow we'll ask why, if the Constitution guarantees protection of the rights of all citizens, and all are equal under law, ethnicity and culture must be an issue of governance.' Does that mean that any 'aspect of governance' or any 'issue of governance' is to be condemned? Wouldn't leave much for governments to do would it?

I note you don't pursue your crazy allegation of reverse racism. But what's your answer on my question about Australians of British descent? And please don't reveal your ethnicity - I never asked for it - I wouldn't want to be accused of reverse racism by not asking for it or of forward racism for asking for it

PaulL,

Howabout this one?

Paul L: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Paul L:I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking... don't they?
Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.

No bananas for guessing where this came from, but it is So profoundly apt.

Frankgol, organised influence. Outside of one man one vote, I'm against any government lobby for special consideration. I don't care if it's for your racist reasons because your afraid your whiteness is being ignored or if it is because someone else thinks their culture or ethnicity should receive special attention and/or tax dollars. Farmers, corporations, religions, sex, ethnics, nothing beyond your one vote. If you require an ethnic and culture council fund it on your own dime. Government should not be in the business of funding race, culture or ethnicity anymore than government should be propping up private corporations and businesses.

aqvarivs

So we can look forward to your vigorous postings on OLO whenever the agrarian socialists (the NFF) demand more drought relief administered through the CWA. And when large corporations are seeking subsidies and tax breaks for research and development.

And you will oppose the tax-free status of churches in Australia and government funding for their schools.

And the next time Anzac Day comes around, you'll be advocating a user-pays policy when service personnel are used for ceremonials?

It's an interesting concept that you raise - teh banning of 'organised influence'. There are going to be an awful lot of noses out of joint and snouts out of troughs. Under your benign reign we might even have to abolish Government advertising designed to boost the flagging stocks of political parties rather than provide a public benefit.

"Little pig, little pig. Let me come in!"

"Of course, Big Bad Wolf, we have a non-discriminatory door-opening policy.
I'm sure your cultural tradition of eating little pigs is something we can negotiate".

First Bruce Is your name not Bruce, then?
Michael No, it's Michael.
Second Bruce That's going to cause a little confusion.
Third Bruce Mind if we call you 'Bruce' to keep it clear?

FrankGol, go up to the Christian lobby thread and you will see I am consistent in my opinion about government and lobbyist

Planet Earth. Year 3471 AD.

"Death To Diversity! One Race, One Culture, One Nation!" says a poster on the wall.

The rantings of white supremicists?
No, the successful global government election slogan of the Caramelites.

Centuries of global migration had created a new majority race with a new dominant culture, a synthesis of all the old races and cultures.

This "new race/culture" was everywhere you turned: Sweden, Kenya, Brazil.

Tourism was virtually non-existent.
Everywhere else was the same as back home, so nobody bothered anymore.

However, pockets of the "old" races and cultures still survived here and there.

The Caramelites couldn't stand this!
It prevented the "pure" new world from reaching its full potential.

Anything of the "old" world posed a threat.
Any reminder of how things used to be might make people want to go back and revive it.

Rampaging across the globe, The Caramelites destroyed anything and anybody that reminded them of the "old" world.

Most people either supported them, or were too afraid to oppose them.

Anybody too white, too black, too yellow, not quite the right shade of brown, or with the "wrong" facial features was shot on sight.

If large groups were found, extermination camps were created.

The Caramelites burned Turkish libraries, German museums and Mexican art galleries to the ground.

They turned Greek statues, Chinese monuments and Indian temples to rubble.

After 63 years, in 3534 AD, nothing was left of the "old" world.

No recordings, no photographs, no artworks, no documents, no artifacts, no buildings, no "old" races.
Nothing.

Only the new race and its new culture remained.

After a few generations, nobody even knew there had been another world before Caramelitia (as the global nation was now known).

Nobody knew what had existed before 3534. There were no records.

Was Caramelitia a "better" society than any before it?
Nobody knows and nobody dares ask.

"Death To Diversity! One Race, One Culture, One Nation!"
One Caramelitia.

"'Death To Diversity! One Race, One Culture, One Nation!'
One Caramelitia."

Gee. I didn't know Boazy was "Caramelite" - I thought he was one of those Brethren types :)

Shockaholic's fiction is improving though. That one would be worth a C+ at Year 6 level, I reckon.

I reckon Shocka was abducted by aliens and they didn't like him either.

Once there was a king who had a plain, but good-natured daughter called Aussierella.

Upon marrying a snob named Mrs Watermelon, the king was convinced by her that Aussierella was boring and he needed some more exotic or classy daughters.

So the king started adopting daughters from all over the world.

The new daughters shared the stepmother's contempt:
Aussierella was too ordinary compared to them.
So they ignored her or made fun of her.

Aussierella tried to be polite and friendly, but felt left out.

One day, all the other daughters got invited to the king's ball.
They dressed up in their finest dresses, full of embroidery and ornament.
They taunted Aussierella over her plain practical clothes.
"Jeans and T-shirt!? No prince would dance with you!" they laughed.

After the rest had gone to the ball, Aussierella sat alone, wondering what she'd done to deserve this.

Then, Poof!
Priscilla her fairy godmother appeared.
"What's the matter, love?"

"I didn't get invited to my own father's ball! I've had a gutful!"

"She'll be right!" said Priscilla.
"Fetch me a big pineapple from the fridge."

With a wave of her wand, the big pineapple turned into a Holden ute, and Aussierella jumped in.

"Hang on a sec!", and waving her wand once more, a pair of glass thongs appeared on Aussierella's feet.

"Bugger me! I didn't know they came in glass."
And Aussierella was off to the ball.

She got the usual cold reception.
"She has no class"
"She's not exotic at all" the guests whispered.

But being the friendly, funny girl she always was, she soon won them over.
And by the end of the night, she was the Belle of the Ball.

And nobody treated her like a peasant in her own kingdom ever again.
Or she gave 'em what for!

YAWN or what...shoka is writing fairy stories now.(puke!)

how about trying your hand at one called 'Shocka the white elephant in the room'?

'But being the friendly, funny girl she always was, she soon won them over.'(Quote: Slic)

Who de' man, Slic?

You knew all along!!

Friendly; funny;.....always wins in the end.

"Then, Poof!
Priscilla her fairy godmother appeared."

Shocka, this isn't kiddies corner btw.

Perhaps its time you went and played with other
kiddies, leave OLO to the grown ups, who
sometimes actually make intelligent comments.

Clearly thats beyond you.

I can drive my imported limousine, & everynight consume, exotic cuisine! ‘It's delightful, it's delicious, it's delectable, it's delirious’

And, I can catch each Euro-cup match, & I do my bit on the rolle bolle patch!‘It's de valoop. It's de vinner. It's de voiks. It's de-lovely’

And when I really want to impress, I dress all tribal & wear a headdress!‘It's delightful, it's delicious, it's de-lovely‘…it’s …it’s “ D-I-V-E-R-S-I-T-Y” !

Mul-ti-culturalism , ‘you've won my heart, and I've lost my brain’
IT’S DELUSIONAL , IT’S DELLSUIONAL …,IT’S D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L!

[with apologies to Col Porter]

The only diversity that counts -the only diversity that really matters- is the ability to think outside the square-outside convention -and that has bugger-all to do with the roadshow called multiculturalism.

Come to think of it, anyone who swallows holus-bolus the multicultural con job is likely to need a lot of help in thinking independently.

This isn't a short story competition, Shockadelic!

Rainier, aliens *did* abduct me!

They showed me a propaganda film that looked *suspiciously* like Watermelonism.

Then extracted my DNA and mixed it with yours to create a new race of Superhumans, saviours of the planet.

Thank God for interfering know-it-alls!

i believe you, but does your therapist?