Frankgol – What are you talking about?

The article was comparing different groups in the community on how they interact. The trends you are talking about are universal trends the ones I was talking about a distinct in more multicultural areas.

The article states that people in multicultural areas are less likely to interact, give to a charity, volunteer etc then those who live in more harmonious parts of society.

Not only that but the author of the research was a champion of multiculturalism and spent a number of years checking his sums to make sure he got it right seeing that the findings where a contradiction to his views.

All MC does is create divisions where there were none before.

MC is a one way street immigrants demand respect for there culture while demanding equal and fair access to Australian institutions which are completely non exist in many of the cultures they are so vigorously defending.

Pericles – I doubt the survey results will change with in 5 years because of all the mores and dogma’s the new and the old groups have.

People are different and just like groups of friends form around traits they have in common so do communities.

MC is an obvious win lose situation. The winners are those moving to the new country due to the fact that they would not be moving across the world if they did not have a lot to gain. The losers are those who are part of the society which forms the backbone of the country. They will have there communities broken down and generally have their national pride defunked.

MC is sadly cannibalising the Australian culture I love!

Dear ET,

MC is the Australian Culture that you love so much - only you can't
accept it. Well just like the dinosaurs - your way of thinking will eventually become extinct ...

BOAZ_David

Philip Tang gave us a short answer to the question about moving from empirical data to causal conclusion, “Must as well attribute the rising of the sun to the cock's crowing”.

Davo and EasyTimes opened the false trail and you followed them blindly.

In logic it’s called the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy – E came after A so must have caused A. Trouble is B, C, and D also followed A and any one of them or some combination of them (including A) – or something else - may be the cause.

Putman argues that Americans have reduced social participation levels and this is sometimes more noticeable in some minority groups. Some have concluded from those ‘facts’ that immigration and multiculturalism are the cause of the problem.

In reality, it’s possible that the causal arrow goes the other way – that reduced participation is the product of lack of multicultural practices. The other logical problem is that many other factors may play a part but are not noticed. I gave four alternative possible explanations of reduced social participation: (a) changes in family structure; (b) suburban sprawl (c) the rise of electronic entertainment and (d) work force changes.

To assert that multiculturalism “destroys the fabric of society” is superficial nonsense. Large-scale social change is always complex. Beware false prophets who say, “This is so simple”.

Your own logical clanger goes further. You claim – “as clearly as day following night’ - we can move from a statement of FACT (let’s accept Putman’s empirical claims for the sake of argument ethnic groups are not integrating) to a statement of VALUE (“ethnically diverse communities are not really that great”).

The facts may be agreed, but what you conclude SHOULD be done about the facts is a matter of judgment. We might agree, as fact, that Howard has led a woeful Government. Would it follow – “as day follows night” – that we should throw him out at the election? WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE comes down to value choice. Facts, values and opinions are related but different concepts.

Dear_Frank....

your conclusion in an above post is.. "Looks like they are mixing to me"....

and I support this. Why the heck are we 'fighting' ? :)

Its my whole point. I simply believe that rather than have structural processes which 'tend' to support and promote difference, they should rather support and encourage mixing.

How easy is that ? It means that press releases and encouragement awards would be more focused on public examples of MERGING rather than entrenched foreign cultural practices.
It does not mean that celebration of different cultures should be abandoned...but the emphasis shifted.
The faster we can ALL say in our census forms 'Australian' as our ancestry the better.

Frank...I don't know if you have ever lived in a community which was very ethnically and religiously divided ? and by that..I mean where the various groups were perhaps of equal or close numbers.... or.. as in my case..where the local minority was in reality part of a national majORITY.. and they made sure you knew it at every opportunity. That included morning prayers being blared out over the river and town at 5:00am.. by a VERY powerful PA system from the local mosque.

I also don't know why you seem to resist the idea of divergent ethnic/religious communities competing for available resources.
Do you actually not believe this to be so ?

That is what I'm talking about 'as day follows night'... I also don't believe that 'ethnic communities are not that great'.... I was saying "Emphasis in division" is not that great....sorry if I did not make myself clear.

Lets get at logic :)

A) "Diverse communities"
B) "Competition for resources, jobs, contracts, wealth, social and political prestige"

I contracted an Italian concreter for a job. All his subbies were.. wait for it.. "Italian" ) gee..I never saw that coming 0_-

You don't see any direct connection ? IF not...then I suggest you have definitely never read history and have been secluded in a cucoon for most of your life. Don't take that as me attacking you please.. I'm trying to drive home a point.

To the claim that multiculturalism "destroys the fabric of society", I reckon it's the exact other way around - as the fabric of society is being changed, diluted and stretched apart etc, people that otherwise wouldn't have an opportunity, now do. This is particularly true for migrants and Aboriginals etc. They are almost always not the agents for change/destruction, but the beneficiaries via the new opportunities that open up. Naturally, the homogeneous Australian society we once enjoyed is never quite going to be the same. But that's life in a changing world. Things aren't going to go back to where they were, so people will be better off by getting on with life and doing the best they can.

As to who or what the agents for the destruction of society are, I reckon rampant capitalism would have to rank right up there. As people get wealthier, they tend to hang on to their power and increasingly disregard people who they believe aren't as economically successful as they are. Things like this are the real society killers!

EasyTimes comments: "All MC does is create divisions where there were none before." Wrong. All MC does is bring the divisions that have always existed into stark relief, not create them. What we then do to deal with the differences says what sort of maturity we have as a country. And Australia has shown that we have always come up trumps! When you consider that every migrant/ethnic group that first came to Australia was treated with suspicion, it's a pretty good effort that we have the strong sense of generally peaceful Aussie culture that we do today.

David

We are not fighting each other – well I’m not fighting anyway. You are fighting some imagined malevolence that you label ‘multiculturalism’.

The issue of ‘mixed’ marriages is a case in point. You are pleased with the degree to which it is happening in multicultural Australia, yet in the next breath accuse multiculturalism of supporting and promoting ‘difference’.

You say: “I'm trying to drive home a point.” But what point? That multiculturalism encourages ethnic groups to co-mingle (as in interethnic marriages) or that multiculturalism encourages ‘difference (as in all-‘Italian’ concreting businesses)?

You accuse me of resisting “ the idea of divergent ethnic/religious communities competing for available resources”. What are you talking about in Australian terms? Catholics versus Protestants? It has been a notoriously vicious contest in this country, but I think things have settled down. The greater contests for available resources are between the rich and the poor (see the current debate on OLO set up be Peter Saunder's shocking paper).

By the way, I loved the three stints I had living in Turkey, especially the early morning wake-up call from the mosque. Just as I have loved the decade or more of living and working in the ethnically-diverse western suburbs of Melbourne, where my concreting jobs have all been done superbly. The concretors' ethnicity was irrelevant: I wanted a super job - and I got it. Ah, it's a great country.