Grn

You accuse me of being “utterly misleading” in my quoting of ABS stats.

I went to the ABS link that you nominated where, as you advised, I studied Section and Table 4.3.

“The percentage of non-white spouses citing a partner with Australian ancestry is extremely low, low single digits mostly,” you claim. “Even after the third generation.”

Misleading indeed! Table 4.3 deals with 1st and 2nd generation intermarriage only. Where do you get the 3rd generation figures from? They are not provided there.

What the author actually says in Section 4.3 (note: same author as I originally quoted) was that: “However, among ancestries of all groups, there is a clear trend of increasing likelihood of intermarriage from the first to the second generation and from the second to the third and later generations.”

To give you the benefit of the doubt for an honest mistake, you have misread Table 4.2 which shows intermarriage with a spouse of AUSTRALIAN ANCESTRY ONLY – it does not show intermarriage with a person of another ancestry. This is NOT the same as saying, as you do, that the ethnic groups do not mix.

Now, go back to the same author's Monash paper (People & Places) and you will see what a difference it makes when you look at intermarriage broadly (not just what you call ‘non-whites’ marrying people of Australian ancestry - your ‘whites’?)

Her conclusion is that the data is crystal clear:

“Not many Asians or Middle Eastern ancestry groups had a third generation in 2001. Of those that did – the Chinese, Indians and Lebanese – 70 per cent or more had married outside their ancestry group.”

So, all in all, when you claim: "The supposed success of multiculturalism is the Great Lie of our generation, sustained because some people want it to be true, not because it is. Our future is more ethnic segregation, not less", I'm afraid the reality of inter-ethnic mixing as evidenced by intermarriage in Australia rather spoils your personal Great Lie theory even if you are sustained by what you want to be true.

This bloke Rennie is either deluded or just plain DANGEROUS.

Let's analyse a sentence of his- Referring to English language learning centres for migrants:

"It wasn’t utopia. There were gangs and violence, sometimes ethnically based but not always. There was rivalry between groups and lots of problems associated with adjusting to a new country. But these young people embraced Australia without having to lose their roots, language and culture. We were all richer for it."

Does anyone besides me see it :

1/ No Utopia.
2/ Gangs and Violence.
3/ Rivalry between groups/gangs.
4/ Lots of problems adjusting.
5/ DID NOT LOSE THEIR ROOTS... language or culture.

Now...for the absolute nut case conclusion-

6/ "We are richer for it"?

How in the heck.. does 'gangs/violence/rivalry/maladjustment and clinging to non Australian roots' make us "richer" ?

It is those VERY ROOTS and LANGUAGE and CULTURE which caused the 'gangs, violence and rivalry' it did not just appear out of thin air..it has a (now follow Pericles finger) CONTEXT.

IF..... Rennie had said "as their connection to their roots faded, and they saw themselves more as 'Australians' than Bosnians, Islanders, Vietnamese...etc " then..his conclusion "We are richer" would logically have followed.

But he didn't..and we aren't.

FRANK......thanx for supporting my 'mantra' :)

ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE, ONE RACE..... with your observation as follows:

“Not many Asians or Middle Eastern ancestry groups had a third generation in 2001. Of those that did – the Chinese, Indians and Lebanese – 70 per cent or more had married outside their ancestry group.”

Which is exactly what I mean... as intermarriage occurs, the sense of 'us/them' dissappears...and we see ourselves as 'Australians' first and foremost.

The best thing we can do is facilitate this and promote it.. with education and policy.

Dear Davo,

Australia is no longer predominantly an Anglo country. The population of Australia is made up of over 140 ethnic backgrounds, speaking over 90 languages, in their homes, and practising more than 80 religions.
To-day over 700,000 Australian children have a first language that is not English.

And yet how can we combat racial prejudice and banish it from the Australian scene? The Australian School - it is the key to national reform in this area. The term "Migrant" or nowadays more fashionably "ethnic" are divisive terms, and merely euphemisms for "Non-Anglo-Saxon." These terms generate a backlash against special programmes which are seen to benefit only a minority section, as against the so called "Mainstream" in our community.

The debates about ethnic radio, multicultural television, and the whole sphere of multicultural services in Australia, totally obscure the point that they are designed to serve - Australian workers, Australian taxpayers, and in the main, Australian Citizens.

It's not a matter of applying funds or facilities sectionally; it's a matter of reforming the facilities to cater for the whole population, instead of as has been the case in the past, only the Anglo-Saxon section of it...

My comments about problems such as gangs and violence were about the schools and their communities not the language centres many of the students had attended when they first arrived. If I gave the impression that there were more problems than in other more homogeneous schools it was not intentional. Fights were a rarity. It is my remarks which are being taken out of context in some of the comments.

For a more recent perspective I suggest watching the repeat of tonight's SBS Insight program on Friday afternoon that looks at the current situation in Noble Park. It is not a rose-coloured discussion nor was my article meant to gloss over the issues.

Nice article, Kevin Rennie/top ender (?). I see it's brought out some of the usual suspects - who display their intransigent xenophobia and tenuous comprehension of Australian society yet again.

I have no idea what Yindin was getting at, but grn's flawed evaluation of what s/he claims is "the legacy of this failed social experiment" has been more than adequately disposed of by FrankGol.

Davo doesn't seem to realise that the ascendancy of "Australia's British heritage" is well and truly relegated to history in contemporary Australia, despite the fantasies of some who'd like to turn back the clock about 70 years. I'd like to know what he means by "the neo-colonial dogma of multiculturalism" - what "dogma" is this and who espouses it? Why is a multicultural immigration policy "neocolonial"? I think we may have another Year 12 failure, Frank :)

Boazy: "This bloke Rennie is either deluded or just plain DANGEROUS".

Boazy's certainly deluded, but he'd only be dangerous if anybody took him seriously. Rennie was clearly talking about his "experiences during the 80’s and 90’s teaching with high Non-English-Speaking-background (NESB) and English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) student populations in Melbourne secondary schools". Show me a high school anywhere that doesn't have its "gang" rivalries and occasional violence.

Boazy needs to calm down and take his medication, or perhaps have a quiet few moments with his imaginary friend.

Also Boazy, if that's what you really mean by your "mantra", why do you persist in expressing it in such a Nazi-like way? All that slogan's going to do is attract the Stormfront crew and alienate the vast majority of people who aren't white supremacists.