Col, now I'm confused...you said you were Libertarian...so why are you concerned over trying to maintain ethnic identity? Shouldn't everybody be free to enter and remain in the country, so long as they respect the law?

Dresden wrote: “One cannot understand modern Australia unless you realise that our culture, institutions, social practices, politics, attitudes, way of life and view of the world are fundamentally shaped by our European heritage”

This is exactly the point that Jennifer is making but you (as well as our fanatical Anglophile Col) do not appear to understand beyond a very superficial intellectual engagement.

Is this because the elements of your own identity that are so congruent with the dominant culture and are thus so normalized and reflected back at you that you take such traits for granted (as normal)?

But is this normal? This is the question JC asks and you have taken issue with.

Why?

In other words you argue that if one does not understand the fundamental basis by which white supremist culture operates and informs national patriotism - one does not understand Australia.
I have absolutely no problem with this at all.

I just wish you and Col had the guts to name it for what it is rather than trying to dress it up in solipsistic ‘soft centred’ jingoisms.

Is it because you think that Whiteness should not be an area of cultural, historical and sociological inquiry? This is akin to telling anthropologists not to study black people.

**Thanks Jennifer for naming the "white elephant" in the room (again).

Wizofaus.... you said:

Arjay, no-one is advocating handing out citizenship certificates to known terrorists or fundamentalist sharia Imans, but the majority of Muslim immigrants settle in here just fine.

to which I offer:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21952947-601,00.html

THE nation's most senior Shia Muslim cleric has attacked John Howard for backing Israel against Arabs and openly declared his allegiance to the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.

Sheik Mousselmani said all of Australia's approximately 30,000 Shi'ites were avid supporters of Hezbollah (Party of God) and haters of Israel.

COMMENT...I'm rather interested in how you see this kind of thing as 'integrated well'..... etc ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHbV5CSj51I You might like to pay attention to the actual words spoken by Nasrallah..the head of Hezbollah..

The Australian Sheikh is guilty of terrorism and treachery.. as follows:

1/ He Supports Hezbollah.

2/ Nasrallah/Hezbollah calls for 'death' to America.(and has attacked US soldiers (Marine Barracks.. 200+ killed)

3/ Australia is allied to the USA by the Anzus treaty.

4/ America is our ally.. and we are theirs.

Thus.. to call for the destruction of our ally, is to break treaty with us.. hence..it is treason.

This is confirmed further, by the Muslim understanding of 'treaty'... in particular the Treaty of Hudabiya. Between Mohammad and the Meccans. (prior to him invading it) Mohammad claimed the treaty had been broken by virtue of the fact of a tribe allied with the Meccans.. attacked a tribe allied with MOhammads forces.

Thus.. guilty on all counts.. the Sheikh and every Shia Muslim who confesses support for Hezbollah should be arrested forthwith and incarcerated.

Wiz, Col's only a libertarian to the extent that it doesn't conflict with his Thatcherite world view. Given his extreme views about recreational drugs, for example, one would have to question his understanding of Libertarianism. I expect that he self-describes as 'libertarian' because that sounds better than 'fascist bastard'.

It's hardly surprising that he approves of Dresdener's Anglophilia, given that they evidently share a similarly neo-colonial view of Australia. Personally, I think that Australia would be better off if Col buggered back off to the Old Dart and Dresdener repatriated himself to Dresden - but it's a free country, eh?

BOAZ, I'm not sure under what circumstances Sheik Mousselmani was granted citizenship, but his claim that 30,000 Australian Shi'ites supported Hezbollah terrorists is clearly inflammatory and disruptive. Fortunately it appears there is little evidence that his words resonated at all with Australia's Muslim population, and I'd much rather him to be spouting that sort of nonsense here than in Lebanon, where no doubt it would encourage further hatred and terrorism.
As for the treason charge - going by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#Australia, it's hard to see how his ravings qualify as such: the laws quite clearly apply to actions, not words, and quite specifically only apply to Australia, not allied nations.

Surely the big question is "What action provides the greatest benefit?". And here is another question: What would happen if you took a bunch of black people, dispersed them about a world hitherto devoid of humans, then left them to their own devices for 100,000 years?