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.