This is what you get with too much immigration; especially non-Anglo immigration let loose in academia.

Multiculturalism is still the biggest threat to Australia – increasingly so. The very purpose of multiculturalism is to encourage diversity, to encourage the expression of differences. Multiculturalism is anathema to “social cohesion”. The “Melbourne’s Greeks” this foreign-sounding author refers to are a case in point. Among the oldest immigrants to Australia, Greeks are separatists. Several generations down the track, people who have never seen Greece, call themselves ‘Greek’. A Greek has no more in common with the host Anglo culture than an Arab does. The same can be said for most immigrants to Australia now.

The implication that the Immigration Minister’s actions against the terror suspect, Haneef, were somehow connected to Haneef’s being a “dusky foreigner” clearly shows what a nasty trouble-maker this foreign-sounding (his choice of words) multiculturalist is. We have Anglos kicked out the country all the time, but there is never a word about them or the colour of their skin!

Even Tampa gets a mention. Again! The multiculturalists are running out of material. They are easily beaten, if only we have the will before it is too late.

Hello Leigh.

I am one of those anti Australians you are talking about. Yes, I am GREEK!

But guess what, some of my best friends are Aussies. And some of the most despicable characters I have ever come across are Greek Australian.

The point is, stop being so fixated on the ethnic link. You make it seem that every Greek is loyal to every member of his kin. It ain't true mate!

In what ways can we Greeks destroy the fabric of this country? I fail to see how.

Article 6666: Cultural diversity is our social, economic and political challenge . It is the delayed and unrealised Australian challenge. A challenge now urgent for the wellbeing of futures.

I am with you Andrew Jakubowicz,, "My hope is that Australia's next government will see cultural diversity as the central social question" to be resolved.

Vaild points made for this election that ought be inclusive;

1. everyone feels that they are part of the new Australian story, and aren’t being written out because they’re 'alien';

2. the enormous potential locked up in the cultural depth and breadth of Australians is captured and released as a resource for the future; and

3. potential immigrants who can contribute to Australia, see it as a place worth committing to in the future.

If only we could put the SEOUL back into our government instead of allowing it (the Declaration) to be used to preach to everyone else. I.e., the Asian Pacific and or small island state governments.

Preaching must start at home.

http://www.miacat.com
.

Savvas,

You prove my point by calling yourself Greek. I don't cling to my 'ethnic' background. I'm Australian. Australians live in Australia. Greeks, Italians, whatever, live in Greece or Italy. I cannot understand why immigrants, but particularly their Australian-born children, living their lives in Australia, want to designate themselves as foreigners for the rest of their lives.

Leigh,

I am an Australian citizen. but my ethnic background is Greek. I am a conservative man. In fact, unlike Howard, I believe I have the essence of true conservatism.

As a true conservative, I will NOT throw away my identity.

Just answer me how my retention of my ethnic background impacts on Australia?

We work, we interact with our fellwo citizens, we pay our taxes. I am still at a loss to see how we are undermining this country?

In fact, if you listen to the voices of Australia's youth, and watch tv, it is not all us foreigners that are changing Australia. It is the USA. Whether that is good or bad, is not for me to say, but us 'aliens' are not doing anything to change this country to the extent that the US is.

Savvas

"We cannot allow racist clowns..."

You mean people who say that candidates should be appointed to the head of public institutions on the basis of race? People such as you, Andrew.

If you want to find racism, look in the mirror.

Leigh,

As a 5th generation Anglo-Saxon Australian, I'd don't really identify as being much other than "Australian". However, I can see that I'm just one of many vague 'types' of Australians. There are descendants of the native Australians, people with distant or immediate history from elsewhere in Europe, and the migrants and refugees from elsewhere around the world have all become "Australian". While there is certainly a dominate culture of football/cricket loving, beer guzzling, mate-ship forming larrikinism, there is far more to the Australian culture and we are far from a homogeneous society.

It's natural to be suspicious of the unknown, and that is what the multicultural push was aiming to address. It wasn't about changing the way you live or the culture you have, but acknowledging and learning about the other cultures that already successfully co-exist in our society today. The ideals behind multiculturalism are inherently Australian as they are all about a "fair go". Giving others and their way of life a fair go at being part of Australia. That said I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone and all cultures are compatible with these notions and the Australian way of life, but that does not mean we should be fearful of everyone who is different.

The Article: "Oddly not one non-Anglo name appears after 1945..."

I'm not well read on famous Australians, however perhaps all the important achievements were by people with Anglo names? It would be wrong to include someone based on the origins of their name. A specific example of someone worth including would go a long way in backing the argument.

DESIPIS

Well put.

If Andrew Jakubowicz thinks some people have been left out of some or other list of worthy Australians he has a simple remedy. He can argue for their inclusion.

Here are some "non-Anglo Saxon" Australians I think should feature on any list of great Australians.

Sir Gustav Nossel, Australian of the year, 2000

Peter Doherty, Winner of the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine, 1996 (Doherty is an Irish name. NOT Anglo-Saxon)

Cathy Freeman, Australian of the year, 1998. It may be an Anglo-Saxon name but Cathy Freeman is not "Anglo-Saxon."

LEIGH

It's not non-Anglo-Saxon academic immigrants that should worry us. It's sloppy ones.

Dear Savvas (warm welcome to OLO)
you asked:

"Just answer me how my retention of my ethnic background impacts on Australia?"

Well..it depends a bit on how much you seek to retain, and then.. if there are elements which are not compatable with the values and culture you found when you arrived.

If..for example.. you were a Maori, and your method of greeting others is to rub noses... do you feel it would be appropriate to refrain from shoving your snoz into everyone elses rather than shaking hands ? :) A simple example, but a good one.

You see.. if 'retaining' means stubbornly clinging to anything which is likely to produce social confusion, or cultural 'in'trusion.. or insult.. or offense.. then in the interests of peace and harmony and definitely tolerance, it would be best to tolerate and acquiesce to the prevailing wouldn't it?

I'm rather hoping you are like the Greek migrant I met at a picnic ground. He said "I'm not really very Aussie, but my kids are more..and their kids will be much more"

After all.. people who 'migrate' as opposed to just spend time working, come to join the society not create a sub culture or.. am I missing something here? If I went to Greece and acted very 'aussie' and offended people right left and centre by my 'Aussie' ways.. I should expect some harsh criticism such as "You came to this place to live.. why not embrace our culture and lifestyle"?

I speak 3 non english languages, (Malay/Indonesian/Tribal language) because I did adjust, assimilate, fit in with, learn about... the country where I was living.

This Jacobowitz is an outright RACIST.. he wants people appointed to positions of authority based on their race.. he is even SEXIST as he wants them appointed for the gender reasons. He also advoates 'sexuality' as a criteria for public office ?
Did they just let this bloke out of LARUNDEL? He sounds like a maniac.
Plan.....for diversity... this from a bloke who worked in BIRMINGHAM, with all its 'utopian racial harmony'.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article582770.ece
Put Jacobowitz back in the assylum.

Savvas... another thought :)

Regarding your 'background'.... how big is the 'Macedonian/Greek' issue to you ? Greeks and Macedonians don't seem to see eye 2 eye on that.
Lets say "Alexanda the Great"....was he Greek or... Macedonian?

Do you take a firm stand on this ? Do you feel insulted if someone takes the opposite viewpoint?... if they take that opposite viewpoint to your face, and passionately so... how do you react ?

We had problems beween Serbs and Croats at the Tennis a while back.. why? aah.. retention of ethnic background and history mate.

The best thing for any migrant.. is to lose their sense of 'ethnic' identity and seek to reclothe themselves in the label 'Australian' no need for any more.. no extr "Of Greek Background" or.. "Of Anglo Background".. nope.. lets ALL put that behind us, and simply call ourselves 'Australian'....

How do you feel if your son or daughter wishes to marry a partner of Anglo (or Asian, or German) background? Do you say "Oh nooooooo you must not marry out of our ethnicity".... or.. do you say "AAah.. this is good.. breaking down barriers and becoming more 'Australian'...?

This Jacobowitz is the biggest clown to hit OLO since the last moron who spoke about diversity as a 'good thing'.. no.. diversity of a cultural nature simply reinforces a 'them/us' mentality.

I've been enriched beyond measure by marrying outside my Anglo Scott background, and my mixed children have many great friends of various ethnic backgrounds. But the enriching is in the 'assimilation/integration/intermarrying' of all the various groups.

The outcome should be a wonderful Australia filled with wonderful "Australians" with no ethnic baggage.

Professor Jakubowicz claims that 'cultural diversity is the central social question,' but I would say for the wrong reasons. The central question, and the TEST, of cultural diversity is not that it can coexist with Australian values but whether it can coexist with other diverse migrant groups whose nations in the past and in the present have been and are at war and conflict. And in this test they have failed irretrievably. Croatians and Serbs, Serbs and Kosovar Albanians, Greeks and Turks, Arabs and Israelis, and Slav Macedonians and Greeks, all of them brought with them the "atavistic" conflicts of their history to this country. When Slav Macedonians and Greeks were burning each others Orthodox churches in the mid ninenties in this country were those events leading to the "social cohesion" of Australia, ala professor Jacobowicz?

This cultural diversity is not a PEACEFUL diversity but a WARRING diversity, and therefore is not merely a social question, as professor Jacobowicz avers, but foremost a POLITICAL question that has to be resolved for a peaceful and united Australia.

See:Multiculturalism: How a Pet Idea Became a Dinosaur
http://www.con.observationdeck.org

Like leigh, Boaz David and others, I am an immigrant in a black mans country.

My origins are Anglo Saxon and accordingly retain that culture, and the community I live in is from all corners of the world. A diversity of cultures that have enriched my life,from which I have learned and grown from, and helped me appreciate the wonderful contribution multiculturalism makes to the meaning of being an Australian.

grn, Thermistocles and Boaz,
You all made good points. This author is a complete dill who looks at ethnic diversity through rose coloured glasses. He totally disregards the baggage the comes with some cultures. Australians have been very understanding of various cultures and we have made allowances for them, but what about those that do not reciprocate. Those that do not want to mix with other cutures or respect our social norms. Do we keep on importing them?

He also has a big chip on his shoulder and thinks all appointments are made, or should be, on grounds other than ability. Thats how to acheive medeocracy. The most suitable persons should get positions and to hell with ethnicity, religion, race or sex.

Relax, Leigh, multiculturalism is dead. This has all happened before, during the gold rush. At the end of the rush we had a far more multicultural population than at any time since, but seventy years later it had all boiled down into a monoculture, with one of the interesting features that every otherwise monocultural country town had its Chinese takeaway. Unless the current wave of immigration is maintained, and many are starting to question it because of shortages of resources, particularly water, we can expect the same thing to happen again. Very few Australians recognise the power of our culture; immigrants from all over the world, given a few decades, become genuine aussies with very little social discord. If you ask most immigrants what they want, it is to assimilate into the community whilst retaining their heritage, and this is what we are very good at. The only group it hasn't worked well with are the aboriginals, and they aren't immigrants. I know this is not to the taste of many academics, but you know how highly their views are regarded in the community.

Enamoured though I am of Australia's cultural diversity, I think Andrew Jakubowicz's article is seriously flawed in at least a couple of ways.

Calling for representation in public institutions that is representative of the cultural and ethnic composition of the populace is well and good, but Jakubowicz doesn't say how this enlightened state will occur beyond "from public nominations". He leaves himself open to accusations of positive discrimination that are particularly fraught in the current political climate.

"This equation can only be made to work if large numbers of skilled immigrants are attracted to and retained in Australia."

We are rapidly approaching - if we haven't already reached it - the point where our population and economy are unsustainable at our current levels of consumption of energy and resources. I think that about the only immigrants we should admit to Australia are refugees, and that we should increase facilities for them (and indeed any other Australians) to acquire the skills that we need.

Australia has been a mono culture for many years until the immigrants came. They brought new foods new values and slowly the Australian culture changed.

Some argue that individual cultures must be maintained and cherished and not polluted, while others say that being Australian should be the only culture.

I tend to be somewhere imbetween. If you are of say Greek heritage, then cherish it, maintain your language, religion, and values. Like wise for all other backgrounds.

However, although it is always easier to associate with those of common experiences, if one does not moderate it with the greater population, or the other way round, then insulation, nepotism and distrust are easy traps to fall into.

Australia should be a melding pot of cultural diversity not a monoculture or a series of unrelated cultural islands.

How does Australia "get this inclusion thing working" Mr Jakubowicz? It doesn't.

To begin with, assimilation was a dirty word with the multiculturalists for decades. It was only the detonation of the bombs in London, which finally made them focus upon what the "racists" had been saying all along. Unless immigrants are capable of assimilating into the mainstream, then eventually there will be serious civil strife and even civil war.

People like you are now in a quandary. Assimilation is the antithesis of multiculturalism, but people like yourself are trying to make them both work together. But history shows that humans are far more likely to consider their ethnic or cultural identity to be far more important than any concept of nationalism in a multicultural (read socially ruptured) society. Endless civil wars have reinforced that essential truth.

The intifada of Australians in Cronulla, the bombings in London, New York, and Madrid, the race riots in Britain, the assasination of Pym Portyn, the persecution of Salmon Rushdie, and the resurgence of Nazi sympathies in Europe are portents of things to come.

What made Australia a continental island of peace during the 20th century, when all other European cultures were merrily killing each other off, was that this continent was one nation with one language, and one culture. We were one people.

But as Alanis Morriset once sang. "You don't know what you've got till its gone."

If Napolean was alive today, he would probably thank the multiculturalists for "mapping out a splendid future battlefield."

What drives tolerance is not associated with education, it is largely a product of prosperity. And things are good at the moment. But when the tide of economic prosperity finally ebbs, then the competing tribes in this country will define the territories essential to their own survival. And those territories will overlap.

Redneck, it is a myth that Australia has at any stage of its short life had a monoculture, as "one nation with one language, and one culture. We were one people"

This is pure nonsense. Australia is predominantly a refuge for migrants from overseas, first Europe, then Asia. All the nonsense about a single culture is mere wishful thinking by narrow-minded exclusionists, who wouldn't be able to define that "culture" if you stood them up against a wall with a blindfold and a cigarette.

And if you don't even know that it was Joni Mitchell who sang Big Yellow Taxi (you don't know what you've got till its gone etc.), and not Alanis Morriset (who he?) then hey, what hope is there?

Cultural Diversity should not be seen as just a noble objective - but also as an inevitability - so get ready thrill seekers Australia is destined to change.

The percentage of overseas born Australians is growing along with their 2nd Gen off spring.

Most Western communities have exchanged reproducing for new realms of recreational sex, plasma screen TV's and jetski's - the odd child we bring forth has also been commodifed - if you have one its gott be a good one - and you can check early and have it scraped fr4om one's womb - but I digress.

The only communities that are reproducing themseles are those on the African Continent and throughour parts of Asia and the Middle East. They will, at same stage soon, be looking across the seas towards the rich brown land we call home. And with grim determination they will inexorably make their way here. They will have studied the Australian Citizen ship test in one of the many educational outlets established by the Taliban for just such a purpose. So Armed (sorry about that ) they will enter our shores camouflaged with our values.

But most will come just because they are being treated like dogs where they live - or aspire to a better life.

So unless we adopt a fortress Australia mentality -and/or send newbies off to re education camps until they can prove they are just like us with our "values" embedded into their psyche - our "way of life" (barf) will be transformed before the very eyes of those left to watch it happen.

In many ways you could call it a new form of democracy in action. I welcome the day. Not that what we got is all that bad - but we are born merely to evolve.

I find it disturbing that Labour if elected will demolish the Pacific Solution that has successfully deterred boat people. If we throw open our doors as labour seems likely to have us do there will be an influx of unwanted and undesirable residents veiled as refugees. Labour and Kevin Rudd seem oblivious our experience with the Lebanese Muslim arrivals.

Plerdsus,

Your gold rush comparison is partly valid. But remember, there was no official, government-enforced policy of multiculturalism at the time, or afterwards, until Malcolm Fraser and ethnic urgers forced it on us. Things took care of themselves naturally, then, and according to human instinct and nature. Now we have a good deal of resentment about multiculturalism, one of the reasons for this being official, compulsory introduction of the policy without any consultation. Also, I think, the current wave of immigration will be maintained – even though, as you say, many are starting to question it.

Both major parties are mad immigrationists. The minor parties claiming concern for the environment used to be concerned about population increase, but they are now so extreme in the PC, wicked white Australia area, that you never hear Bob Brown, for instance, mention population.

Neither of the only parties capable of forming government has shown even passing interest in a population policy. Even that darling of the conservationists, Tim Flannery, who said that Australia had reached its optimum population at 13 million, doesn’t mention the threat of population growth in his statements on the environmental crisis.

I’m afraid it’s all doom and gloom at the moment, and looks like staying that way until we hit rock bottom. Howard made noises about abolishing the official multicultural policy early in his tenure, but he turned to water as he has so often over the past 11 years. Nothing to do with the Chinese in his electorate of course!

I hope the silly old coot loses his electorate, as he looks like doing. He has blown it for the Government and Peter Costello who has somewhat better attitude to this problem, despite the smirk.

LEIGH - whether you like it or not I'm a kiwi. I've spent most of my life here but are still subjected to the Australian-born sheep jokes. Even if I wanted to 'let go', I'd still be subjected to that joke, perhaps for the 'Australians' to remind me? If I am to be reminded, then isn't it fair to be proud of it? My point being, it's not just the foreigner that would need to change, but a fair few of you as well.

If any 'real Australians' out there don't like the way things are with foreigners retaining their heritage, maybe you need to take a walk in their shoes. I've been in the middle of China and taken 'refuge' with an english speaking 'look like me' guy. For a moment it was relief to speak english to someone. I can only imagine what it's like to commit to a lifetime of the unknown.

We should "all just get on with it", but if someone wants to consider themselves Greek, why should I care? Why should you? Why do you feel this is alienating you, or me or anyone else for that matter? I've come across as many rude and arrogant Australians (and Kiwi's for that matter) as any other creed, colour or culture.

We are all so worried about there not being enough food on the table if they keep coming. And what he said, what she did...

Just live your life and let others live theirs. Those who don't do this mustn't be tolerated, and they must be the ones sent to xmas island or wherever. If we can market this view to the world then we need not have anything to worry about in the way of 'undesirables'.

It is right and proper to give him thanks and praise ( K Rudd) if he over sees the demise of the Pacific Solution and all it stands for -

The PS is an abject failure of policy and human rights - it is rascist in its intent and its outcomes.

It puts a lie to JWH claim to economic conservativism - it has cost us a poultice of money to build and maintain these white elephants as well as to bribe dependant nation states to jail those we fear. Ours is the most expensive per capita gulag for refugees in the known world.

The PS will eventually - along with other acts of bastardry by DIMIA - cost us even more as the class and independant actions against the gubment for various forms of negelct and cruelty roll in.

I imagine the shredders are running white hot in variuos departments as we speak just in case the ALP get into office

You can always tell when 'The Empire' is speaking...because they feel they know 'us' better than 'we' do.

We were born here..but 'The Empire' (Pericles) flew here.. and now that he has been here for 5 minutes, he will introduce us to the truth about our own country....from a secular pulpit 6 feet above contradiction of course.

"Australia never had a monoculture" well..after flying here and being here for 5 minutes, I guess that is the level of ignorance we should expect from those who in their enlightened manner sold opium to the Chinese, "WE know what's good for you Chinese" virtually destroying the social fabric of a country.

Pericles.. your little blurb is outright insulting and grossly offensive to a whole LOT of Aussies.

Just imagine, if some migrant dropped over to London and dismissingly said of the Buckingham Palace "Oh.. that ? its nothing really."

It's about time 'The Empire' realized that we are AUSTRALIANS and not 'British Subjects' to be thrown around or treated like an economic convenience at the whim of the upper classes of England!

>>"In Australia, the status of British subject in Australian law was retained until it was removed by provisions of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984 which came into force on 1 May 1987.<<

Now..here is a very serious word from 'the people'... (or this one anyway) WE...HAVE...A...CULTURE. and it developed during the time between colonization and the end of WWII. The texture has changed a bit since then, but we were definitely NOT 'British' we were and are "Australian". If you don't think we have a culture.. then why not take your leave of our sunburnt land, and go back to your rapidly decaying "Empire"?

Sneeky...... the 'Pacific' Solution is indeed a silly response to the problem of adventurous assylum seekers.

The far better one is the Christmas Island reception and processing centre.

I have more respect for a 'hard line' decision about border protection when it does not look like just a 'knee jerk' response to keep Nauru on side.
I don't believe there is any 'racism' in the Pacific solution, its just cheap political reactionism.

SHAYNE....

if 'we' give you the sheep jokes.. go one better "Oh look.. an Aussie car bouncing along the track, it has 'skippy' printed on its back." :)

Don't worry.. first generation of Kiwis will get a bit of stirring from us.. each time I hear a Kiwi Accent from a call centre I say "Yikes..anOTHER one" then usually have a bit of warm hearted banter about the coming invasion :)

Shayne,

You are quiet right about some Australians not wanting to let newcomers fit in. We do have too many Kath and Kym types who are plain bloody ignorant.

I don't know why they aren't used to Kiwis by now, though. There are more of you here than there are in New Zealand :). The only time I've been to NZ, I was told by a woman that she was surprised to find that I was "quite nice", for an Australian! Others wanted to argue about rugby with me. Fortunately, I live in SA where we don't even know what the game is.

Did you see John Clarke walking through a flock of sheep, saying:"These are not members of my direct family, but I know them all pretty well"?

Australia's immigration program is based on benefits to a minority of affluent Australians in a system that approaches ancient FEUDALISM:

*Polititions benefit through captive-votes, ethnic-enclave-gerrymanders(the Lakemba factor), and that most iniquitous Coalition-GST-bonus growth from expanding immigration.

*Property developers, gambling-magnates and bulk market businesses who rely on increasingly wealthy but grid-locked&violent populations to buy,buy,buy and make businesses wealthier and monopolistic (media&telcos&developers&casinos are out-of-control)

Australian citizens "have never-been-better-off" cries John Howard. But he conveniently forgets the other reality "But Australian citizens have never been more grid-locked, stressed and violent towards one another". Anti-immigration sentiments are real &have NOTHING to do with Racism. Perceived Government-immigration-corruption is a much-deeper-problem. This is why Howard is finished.

The final insult? Immigrants are chosen on wealth under Howard and they are increasingly heard voicing the opinion that "Aussies(skips) are lazy and deserve to lose their country and their rights". "We have most of the elected officials now in local and state government and soon in Canberra". Stand round any second barbecue in Backyard-Sydney and you'll hear this. Its TREASON not racism.

Now there are some 2billion immigrants around-the-globe. That migrants coming here believe they are "better" is ridiculous. That migrants believe they ARE "better" than existing Australians is simply pompous. However, as PEAKOIL approaches, we shouldn't blame them. Our leaders and business elites stupidly&corruptly support that attitude in-return-for handfuls of GST-silver and votes.

*We need to cripple anti-Australian institutions like the BANk that made $4.5billion and raised rates.

*We need European-style-leaders. Italians&Greeks have failed. Get French&Germans who use immigrant labour, keep the good ones and then send the rest back a bit wiser and wealthier. That's how you get RESPECT in a nation. Multiculturalism itself, isn't enough.

Just imagine how weak and dysfunctional-Japan would be today if it rebuked prior-rights and fostered a corrupt, ungrateful Australian multiculturalism. I can hear Japanese now "ah-so she'all be a righta maite" as they get kicked out. A better Japan? Bulla-de-Sh$t!

The current namby-pamby immigration-program is full of ingratitude&ineffiiency&corruption and is already showing signs of blowing up in our faces the same way it already has in Howard's.

Nauseating.

Ah, the magical potion, multiculturalism, which will create a wonderful society with no problems!
Let's all hold hands and sing together.
It's a *fairytale*!

Unfortunately, we won't live happily ever after.
Thousands will die in the streets.

If Australians weren't so easygoing, it would have already happened by now (Cronulla is a taste of things to come).
If we were a more passionate people, there'd already be heads on spikes.

I'm not saying that's a *good* thing, just an inevitable consequence of human nature.

The fact that Savvas Tzionis clings so tenaciously to his ethnic identity should alert him and others that Australians have every intent of doing the same.

We will not allow *our* identity to be bulldozed out of the way, so a "newer, better, 50% more" identity can replace it.

Cultures and identities aren't just products on a supermarket shelf.

"Try new Australia. Now with extra Exotica! Mmmm, yummy!"

Don't you just love the word games:
"Multiculturalism" is interchanged with "cultural diversity".
Like they're synonyms.

*All* societies have cultural diversity.
They have doctors, violinists, football players, architects.
They aren't all doing the *same thing*, are they?
But this *internal* diversity is all related somehow, organically, voluntarily.

Even *contrarian* cultural phenomena like Beatniks or Punks, are an organic *internal* cultural development.
Not something imported from elsewhere.

"Multiculturalism" pretends the diversity *exterior* to our culture is on the same level as the diversity *interior* to our culture.
These are two very different things, but are treated interchangeably.

Multiculturalists also ignore that internal diversity is the result of the free choice of the existing citizenry.
"Multiculturalism" is not.
It's an involuntary, unrelated "diversity", which the local citizenry is not even permitted to question or challenge, without being branded racists and xenophobes.

The alternative to Multiculturalism isn't Monoculture.
It's genuine *internal* cultural diversity (even the contrarian stuff).
Freely chosen by Australian citizens, not forced upon them by the perpetual immigration of millions of people from other cultures.

If Australians *wanted* migrants from Lithuania, that's fine.
But we haven't even been *asked*!
And there's no room left anyway!

Boaz, leading with your chin again.

>>You can always tell when 'The Empire' is speaking...because they feel they know 'us' better than 'we' do.<<

As a Scot you should be more than familiar with these lines from your national poet:

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion"

I have been here for more than a quarter of a century, which gives me two advantages when it comes to offering an opinion on the absence of a monoculture in Australia.

1. I was raised in an environment where culture is a very observable concept. Whether it manifests itself in the attitude of Britons to royalty, or in their attitude towards their cricket team, or simply in the simultaneous existence of, and slow destruction of, the caste system that led the country for some five hundred years, it is palpable from your first day at school.

2. While assimilating its culture, whether consciously or subconsciously, it was at all times crystal clear that there never has been, and never will be, a static, permanent definition of what is "British Culture". As a nation, it has always been an amalgam of imported ideas and ways of life, back into the earliest days of its recorded history.

As is the case in Australia.

This has nothing to do with "Empire". In fact, the "Empire" attitude of command-and-control is far more prevalent in Australia than anywhere else, even Britain. The bureaucracy here is as full of pompous mandarins as India. Our railways are as impervious to improvement as Colombia's. And our politicians cling to power like a bunch of Musharrafs.

You have yourself tried on a number of occasions on this forum - and failed - to squeeze from your fellow-citizens a definition of Australian-ness that they can all agree upon.

>>Pericles.. your little blurb is outright insulting and grossly offensive to a whole LOT of Aussies<<

I doubt it. A few might knee-jerk a response, but those who think for themselves know the reality.

The author writes: "Cohesion, sometimes a proxy word for assimilation, has been bothering Australian conservatives for some time..."

The diversity worshipers within academia never tire of chanting the mantra that multicultural diversity is somehow a strength for our society. But this mantra has no basis in reality.

History has demonstrated time and again that diversity is a curse for a nation. One of the most significant events of the late 20th Century was the complete disintegration of large multi-ethnic, multi-cultural countries, most notably the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and the subsequent emergence of small homogeneous nations. Even Mr. Jakubowicz's ancestral Poland has moved towards greater homogeneity, expelling all those ethnic Germans from Silesia and elsewhere after WWII and encouraging the emigration of Jews during the Communist era.

Mr. Jakubowicz really shouldn't rhapsodize about diversity so much, especially at a time when many Australians are wondering if their nation has swallowed more ethnic and cultural diversity than it can ever hope to digest. Common sense seems to dictate that if diversity continues to expand without limits, then sooner or later the nation in question will become dysfunctional. That's because the basis for any successful nation is a common language, history, culture, ancestry, and values, which creates a community sufficiently cohesive enough to work together for the common good. As soon as diversity expands beyond its natural limits, the nation will experience symptoms such as the development of parallel communities, incompatible worldviews, conflicting value systems, and so forth.

Tragically enough, we are already experiencing the dangerous trend towards balkanisation here in Australia. No wonder conservatives are bothered. They argued that assimilation should be the prerequisite for accepting immigrants and that if immigrants didn't assimilate, they shouldn't come. But the multiculturalists killed assimilation and replaced it with their own utopian vision. In the new 'multicultural' Australia, immigrants are encouraged to try to change their new country to suit their own preferences - their own culture and language - and that anyone who argues against this form of reverse colonisation is considered deserving of character assassination.

(continued below...)

It's also worth noting that it was British settlers who laid the foundations of modern Australian society. Immigrants came later in order to take advantage of the freedom, prosperity, and stability offered by the host 'Anglo' population. In return for being granted the opportunity for a better life, immigrants adopted the culture and language of their new nation.

But then came along multiculturalism, with its clamorous demands that Australia's founding population assimilate to the immigrants’ cultures. By redefining Australia as little more than a loose federation of different ethnicities and cultures, Australia's host population was reduced to just another ethnic group forced to compete for its share of the spoils.

Pandering to newly-arrived minorities at the expense of the majority is bad enough. But branding all those opposed to multiculturalism as 'racists' doesn't seem very tolerant to me.

Pericles: “..it is a myth that Australia has at any stage of its short life had a monoculture, as "one nation with one language, and one culture. We were one people"

In 1947, the Australian population was ninety percent Anglo-Celtic; ninety-nine percent European. Only two percent of the population was non-English speaking. Seems like one nation with one language and one culture to me.

Contrary to all the myths, Australia has not always been a multicultural nirvana held together by a few abstract principles.

Hi Dresdener

and if the ABS stats are any indication, all the migrants put together still only add up to around 30% max of our population. The rest can be directly or indirectly traced to the Angle/Celtic/Scottish/Irish who came here in the beginning of White settlement.

I'm happy to be corrected on this if I err.

Pericles seems to think that unless you can define *precisely* what "Australian" is (it's A plus B plus C), then it somehow doesn't exist!

"Australian" may be composed of numerous elements, not all of them necessarily present in *every* citizen (though some common elements *must* be).
Nor are these elements static, preserved in formaldehyde.

A lot of what makes us what we are is unconscious, instinctive, intuitive.

So why ask for some permanent, universal list of what "Australian" is?

Many of "our" elements will also be shared with other British or European cultures, as they are related to us, and we're reciprocally exposed to each other's culture (books, films, music, etc).

There will also be elements *not* shared with other cultures, even the related ones.
"Australian" is as defined by what it is *not*, as by what it is.

Identities are not static, but neither are they *infinite*!
They have boundaries.

Those boundaries may be blurry and may change, but they're always there.
Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as *any* ethnicity.

Individuals too are not infinite, they have limits.
Or there's be no such person as Pericles.

Does Pericles need to define *exactly* who Pericles is, in order to justify existing?
Pericles may have a *vague* idea of who Pericles is, but not a *precise* A-B-C list.

Who are the Basque?
Who are the Irish?
Who are the Kurds?

A Kurd may not be able to specify *exactly* what a Kurd is, but he knows it's not Irish or Basque, that's for damn sure!

No people has to define who they are, in some shopping list kind of way, in order to justify existing and living their lives with common elements.

The irony of people like Pericles is that they embrace the *collective* ethnic self-identities of natives and migrants.

But deny this same "collective ethnicity" to the majority of the population, just because they might have difficulty *defining* just what that ethnicity is.

You have misunderstood my position so fundamentally, shockadelic, that I fear that I haven't made myself clear.

>>Pericles seems to think that unless you can define *precisely* what "Australian" is (it's A plus B plus C), then it somehow doesn't exist!<<

Well, actually you got that bit partly right. Being a citizen of Australia provides the "A" bit, but doesn't much help with the "B" and "C". From that point on, if anyone wants to describe a particular trait or combination of traits that are somehow uniquely Australian, that's fine - but it is not reasonable to suggest that these should not be described because they are merely "unconscious, instinctive, intuitive" attributes.

That's just a cop-out.

>>So why ask for some permanent, universal list of what "Australian" is?<<

Actually, I didn't. Quite frankly, I don't mind if it is a concept that changes from day to day, or even hourly. But not even being able to make a start without invoking mysterious ideals that defy definition - except of course that they are "unconscious, instinctive, intuitive" - is not helpful.

>>A Kurd may not be able to specify *exactly* what a Kurd is, but he knows it's not Irish or Basque, that's for damn sure!<<

Fair comment. I am perfectly happy to describe myself as "Australian, not Kurdish", but that only tells me what I am not, not what I am.

But here's the bit where we completely disagree:

>>The irony of people like Pericles is that they embrace the *collective* ethnic self-identities of natives and migrants.<<

Where did you get that idea? In fact, my position is that "collective ethnic self-identity" is not a recognizable concept, in exactly the same way that a collective Australian self-identity does not exist.

Except in the minds of some nostalgic folk who prefer to think of us as we were in 1947.

Is this Australia....or France?

Has Paris come to Melbourne ?

Could it be that those who have been 'bigoted, right wing,ranting, raving, advocates of 'assimilation' are actually.....CORRECT?

Why no..of course not.. how could they be? After all..if Jacubowitz can come from the hell hole of Birminghams racial strife and speak of it as a positive glowing example of a glorious multi-cultural diversity victory..... then I guess the theory of general relativity also is not correct ....hmmmm

Ok.. FACTS. (Flemington Melbourne...YESTERDAY)

November 29th, 2007

AN attempted arrest descended into a mass brawl last night as police came under attack from up to 100 youths in Flemington, after a man allegedly threw a large rock at a police car.

One officer is now suffering with a suspected fractured arm.

No one was injured by the rock but when police stopped to speak to the suspect on Racecourse Rd he became abusive and was arrested.

It was during this arrest that another man - also believed to have been involved in the rock-throwing - attacked police officers.

MALMO ? 'No go zones'

But wait.. there's more.. and it will come from... the leftoids who will tell us, just like Bronny telling us we need to 'understand' the Indonesian fisherment/illegal migrants, that we need to 'understand' their background, culture etc.. which drives them into this wild tribalism...

BUT.... no amount of 'understanding' will change the rubber meets the road facts..of a mass attack on police by north african migrants.
No amount of 'understanding' will change their tribalist attitude which says "If we have the numbers... we can run the police outa town"

NO.. its not understanding we need here it is a massive and harsh pedal to the metal police response to GET THE MESSAGE THROUGH to these people... that 'no, we don't do that kinda thing here, this...is Australia'
When I say harsh.. I mean 'speak the language these people understand'.. full on.. no holds barred, take no prisoners.. wham bam thankyou mam all dissidents arrested.. all. Send them to re-education... if they don't then 'get it'..DEPORT.

Here is a contrarian question.

Is there such a thing as too much diversity?

"Bowling alone" author Robert Putnams's research indicates that may be the case.

See:

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

What makes this research compelling is that Putnam, a liberal's liberal if ever there was one, was trying to prove the opposite.

Quote:

>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….">

Quote:

>Diversity does not produce “bad race relations,” Putnam says. Rather, people in diverse communities tend “to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” Putnam adds a crushing footnote: his findings “may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.>

Quote:

>Putnam has long been aware that his findings could have a big effect on the immigration debate. Last October, he told the Financial Times that “he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity.” He said it “would have been irresponsible to publish without that,” a quote that should raise eyebrows. Academics aren’t supposed to withhold negative data until they can suggest antidotes to their findings.>

I suppose the usual dogmatic leftie answer will be either denial or claims that it's all the fault of "racist" whites.

Boaz, if you are suggesting that youth violence is a) new and b) confined to racial groups, refresh your memory with this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/18/newsid_2511000/2511245.stm

or this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/23/2067327.htm

or this:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,22794216-3102,00.html?from=public_rss

or even this:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22385206-2862,00.html

Read those stories and compare with your little skirmish in which i) one police officer suffered "possible fractured ribs" and ii) four kids were arrested.

Don't you think you might be making a fuss about not very much? And you wouldn't be trying to make a broad generalization from a single incident, would you?

And this:

>>When I say harsh.. I mean 'speak the language these people understand'.. full on.. no holds barred, take no prisoners.. wham bam thankyou mam all dissidents arrested.. all. Send them to re-education... if they don't then 'get it'..DEPORT.<<

Would you take the same action if the miscreants are a) Australian b) christian and c) white?

No need for an answer on that one, we all know your views.

Pericles: "Australia is predominantly a refuge for migrants from overseas, first Europe, then Asia."

Actually, first Britain. For *150* years!

Then Britain and Europe. For 30 years.
Then Britain, Europe and Asia. For 30 years.

This history created a British/Western cultural reality.
People born here are immersed in that reality.

"As a nation, it (Britain) has always been an amalgam of imported ideas and ways of life. As is the case in Australia."

But neither cultural amalgam is *infinite*.

""Why ask for some permanent, universal list of what "Australian" is?"
Actually, I didn't."

So what was this comment to BOAZ_David: "You have yourself tried on a number of occasions on this forum - and failed - to squeeze from your fellow-citizens a definition of Australian-ness that they can *all agree* upon."

All agree = Universal

"Describe a particular trait or combination of traits that are somehow *uniquely* Australian"

Why uniquely?
"Our" traits cannot be shared?
They just appear out of thin air! Ridiculous!

"Collective ethnic self-identity is not a recognizable concept."
But "I am perfectly happy to describe myself as "Australian, not Kurdish"".

First ridiculous, now insane.

If there's no such thing as "Kurdish" (a collective ethnic identity) then you can't define yourself in relation to it!

If ethnicities (collective by definition) don't exist, what do all those anthropologists actually do?

If *no* ethnicity exists, they're just figments of people's imagination.
Why then encourage migrants to retain their fictitious ethnicities?
Isn't that encouraging delusional thinking?

"A collective Australian self-identity does not exist. Except in the minds of some nostalgic folk who prefer to think of us *as we were* in 1947."

Now there *was* a distinctly "Australian" Australia in 1947?!
But I thought we never had our own culture?
Make up your mind!

"I am perfectly happy to describe myself as "Australian, not Kurdish", but that only tells me what I am not, not what I am."

Knowing what you're *not* is half the story.

"Australian" isn't Indian, Chinese, Turkish, Ethiopian, Zulu, etc.

We're part of Western Civilisation.
A cultural family.

Other cultural families have *nothing* to do with us.

“On November 25 Australia is still going to be culturally diverse. On November 26, even more so, and exponentially into the future.”

Nonsense.

It ignores the continual, natural and inevitable certainty that the barriers which allow people to signify “cultural diversity” are being eroded by the forces of assimilation. Just as the force of the ocean erodes sandstone. I refer, of course to the impact of “intermarriage” and inter-propagation.

The identifiable clusters which distinguish “cultural identity / exclusivity”, as they exist today, will not withstand the practice of some people freely choosing to copulate with someone of a different “cultural” heritage.

Within a few hundred years, Australia will be populated by Australians with little to no regard for their “Cultural diversity”. Being Australian will be what matters, not Anglo Australian, Greco Australian or Vietnamese Australian.

I saw a TV show recently in which a lot of “English” people had their DNA analysed and found out that what they thought they were (true blood English) was not as true as they surmised. One (a particularly unattractive lady lawyer) even threatened to sue the TV producer when the analysis of her DNA suggested a significant Romany Gypsy influence.

Eventually, we will all end up brown eyed and olive skinned. Blond hair and blue eyes, red hair and freckles being regressive genes and aborigines will be among the first to go (more regressive genes).

I have no faith in those who believe they are somehow “pure” or “special”, due to their cultural identity.
The only way to sustain any “purity" of culture or ethnicity or religion is to deny people their sovereign right to mate with a person of their own choosing and the sort of culture which seeks to sustain such “purity” have seriously marred the pages of history.

We are all the same and will become more “the same” as the natural forces intermarriage and intermixing erode the beach-head of ethnic and cultural diversity and bigotry.

So, bring on the melting pot. "Exclusive" (be they Religious, ethnic, cultural or gender) traits are inherently discriminatory and thus, morally reprehensible.

Col Rouge,

I'm not sure you're correct.

"Not sure" means just that. It means I think you could be right but MAY be wrong.

Some apparent counter-examples

The caste system in India has existed for thousands of years. All skin hues are visible in India. Yet fair skinned and dark skinned Indians rarely intermarry.

Jews and Parsi Indians have kept themselves distinct from the populations among which they dwell for centuries.

I would not even be sure that blue eyes are doomed. Sexual selection is a powerful evolutionary force. If some blue eyed people tend to find other blue eyed people sexually attractive then the genes for blue eyes may be with us for a long time.

Note that the existence of distinct cultural / ethnic / genetic groups does not mean zero gene flow between the groups. It simply means that most, NOT ALL, coupling occurs within a group.

It is possible that many groups will continue in their current "impure" form for centuries and that there will still be blue-eyed inhabitants of this island in 3000 AD.

As always, any entry using the words "culture" and "diversity" gets a whole lot of heat but very little light.

Col Rouge is right on the money when he points out that all this "cultural diversity" stuff is but a temporary phenomenon. Just as the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans and so on disappeared over time as separate definable entities, so will our current fixation with "otherness" fade away. All we are seeing is the final feeble kicks of xenophobia.

stevenlmeyer makes an interesting point:

>>Some apparent counter-examples: the caste system in India has existed for thousands of years. All skin hues are visible in India. Yet fair skinned and dark skinned Indians rarely intermarry. Jews and Parsi Indians have kept themselves distinct from the populations among which they dwell for centuries.<<

Is this a good thing, or a bad thing, stevenlmeyer?

In your view, is India better or worse off with these enclaves of differentness existing in their midst?

Stevenlmeyer “I'm not sure you're correct.”

“Jews and Parsi Indians”

Tempted to suggest “The exceptions which prove the rule”

As Pericles points out, the Indian Caste system is something which, whilst uncertain of any good, I can think of a lot of harm which has come from such, most despicable, a view where people are helpless to influence the level they hold within the system (being born to it).

The caste system and the view of Brahmins versus Outcastes was / is as abhorrent as and has striking parallels to the 1930 Fascist view of Aryans versus Slavs.

I would note it was enforced by a minority who used religious rules to oppress and discriminate against the majority and deployed enforced ignorance to keep the majority oppressed (which sounds a bit like the Church of Rome).

When I wrote the comment, I was not thinking of India but more locally to such organizations as the Exclusive Brethren and some of the whacko fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim and Jewish) sects whose beliefs (I would not call them “values”) reflect systematic cultural discrimination.

I would suggest, the responsibility of anyone with a functioning brain is to ensure such caste systems are consigned to the dustbin of history.

They do become examples of “the sort of culture which seeks to sustain such “purity” have seriously marred the pages of history.”

However, we also seek to be tolerant and accepting that people have a right to be stupid and make mistakes, preferring persuasion to legislation.

To me, it will always be sad, when someone denies their children their potential by forcing a dogma or doctrine which restricts and jades their life experiences and acquired values to something limited to an artificial exclusivity, be it class or caste or racial exclusiveness.

Indians in my opinion Indians are one of the worst. They are nice to you until the know you status. Once they find out your below them they will treat you like dirt. This was told to me by a friend of mine who was Indian.
Another time I was doing a ward round in hospital with an Indian doctor ( who was trying to scab his way into Aus) and he turned to me and said a few words about a poor person who was sick in bed. The words were to the affect of " don't worry about her, you can't turn a donkey into a racehorse"
I also now work in a few clinics with 3 Indian drs. They lie and cheat on their medicare claims ( they write down false item numbers to claim from medicare )and they have no morals including stealing patients from other drs ( the other drs have complained to me about this). The receptionists know they do this but are to scared to say anything.
India is full of crime and corruption. We don't need that here.

Pericles asks whether I think the Indian caste system is a "good thing" or a "bad thing."

For what its worth I think it's a "bad thing."

However that does not mean it won't continue.

Both you and Col Rouge are missing my point.

I am not commenting on whether the continued existence of distinct groups is a "good thing" or a "bad thing."

I am simply giving reasons why I think distinct groups MAY continue to exist in Australia and why blue-eyed people MAY not be facing extinction.

Sexual selection is always the wild card.

Another group that appears to have maintained its identity is the Gypsies of Europe.

The Exclusive Brethren are probably a transitory phenomenon but who knows?

Pericles and Col Rouge think that merely living in close proximity will over time eliminate distinct ethnic/cultural identities.

Chuck everybody together, and sooner or later they'll all just blend into one, right?

I can think of at least three obvious examples that defy this conclusion: The Caucasus, New Guinea and Switzerland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_of_the_Caucasus

There are *41* ethnic groups living in the Caucasus.
An area of land half the size of New South Wales!

These groups have lived in close proximity to each other for centuries, but have still maintained distinct ethnic identities.

Why haven't they all just blended together?

New Guinea is an *island* about the same size as New South Wales.
It's been inhabited for at least 40,000 thousand years.
There are about *1000* tribal groups, almost all with their own exclusive language.

Why haven't they all just blended together?

Switzerland is smaller than Tasmania, and has existed for centuries.
Yet it has 26 regional governments.

Despite living within one national border for hundreds of years, the four cultural groups of Switzerland remain largely confined to separate regions (and not through any oppressive segregationist policy either).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_Languages_CH.png

Why haven't they all just blended together?

The Caucasus, New Guinea and Switzerland show us that ethnic identities can persist for centuries, despite multiple ethnic groups living in close proximity, within a small region.

Why would it be any different in Australia?

Shockadelic “Why would it be any different in Australia”

If Australia had been colonised by the Swiss or New Guineans or (geographic) Caucasians it would be the same as them.

Much to its benefit, Australia was fortunately colonised by the British.

With the dominant racial group still in Australia being British, (Irish, English, Scottish or Welsh). One of the major characteristics is an uncanny capacity to interbreed (maybe the desperation whipped up by "any port in a lusty storm").

With some groups the resistance to interbreeding was enforced by religious beliefs (eg Judaism, although despite being an English protestant, I do have 2 great grandmothers who were apparently born into the twelve tribes (of Israel), again demonstrating the British capacity for interbreeding.

I would note, the Jews of England were recognized by other Jews for the way they were “accepted” by Britain in a manner not so common in eastern Europe (Queen Victoria was not known for conducting pogroms, in the manner of her nephew, the Russian Czar)

“Caucasians” were possibly following some observance to fend off assimilation from the incessant flow of invading armies too and fro between Asia and Europe.

It really does not matter.

Like it or not, the “dominant” immigrant culture of Australia is going to remain British (for the next many generations at least). The resistance to assimilation will progressively break down as the common Australian language (English) destroys any lingering bastions of isolationism and the “melting pot” will absorb all, even those seeking to defend and perpetuate Caucasian, Swiss and New Guinean inbreeding.

Strange, Shocka could have commented on the state of Belgium, the Flemish versus the Walloons or the German speaking minority.

Europe is littered with quaint ethnic groups who are disappearing as communication, both physical and electronic focus on the major language groups, eroding the separate religious, linguistic, monetary and legal systems which have kept them apart for generations. Sooner or later, most of Europe including the Swiss will be speaking Esperanto

So that is why it will be different in Australia, just another part of Australia’s Great British Inheritance and Heritage.

Esperanto! Are you kidding?

Esperanto's been around since 1887, yet isn't the official language of any nation, and is spoken by less than 1% of Europeans.

Take a look at the real Europe as see how impossible this "One Europe" would be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Languages_of_Europe_no_legend.png

These cultural groups have been aware of each other for centuries and are related, but different ethnicities persist.

It is ridiculous to believe all these people are somehow going to all start speaking only one language and sharing a common culture.
That's just an unrealistic fairytale.

They may all learn English (not Esperanto) as a second language, but they'll still maintain their own too.
And their cultures may influence each other, but they'll never become just *one* culture.

Far from all blending together, the world seems to be becoming even more determined to maintain separate ethnic communities.

Look at the Basque, Tamil, Sikhs, Kurds, Quebec, Chechnya, Tibet.
Are these "quaint" ethnicities passively and quietly dying out, to make way for the Brave New World Order?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements

The Soviet Union, which *tried* to unify diverse peoples, ended up splitting into Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

Note how each of these new nations is defined by *ethnicity*!
There are still active secessionist movements within Russia.

"Strange, Shocka could have commented on the state of Belgium, the Flemish versus the Walloons or the German speaking minority."

Well, Col Rouge, if "Europe is littered with quaint ethnic groups who are disappearing", why are members of all the ethnic groups in Belgium either seeking independence or propose splitting up the nation and joining neighbouring countries?

There is no "one world", there are many worlds and always will be many.

"Australia" should be one of those many worlds, with its own distinctive character (which is British-based, but not quite "British").

Can we really maintain our distinctiveness with migrants coming from all over the world, a large number from completely unrelated cultures?

The hilariously irony of people like Col Rouge is that cultural imperialism is a bad thing only if it's the Vatican or the Nazis or *somebody else*.

But when it's your own preferred brand of society, then advocating universal conformity is a wonderful thing!

You can be an arrogant white imperialist if, and only if, you advocate secular humanist materialism.

Nobody should have a problem with that social model.
If they do, they're stupid, wrong, false, evil.

Col Rouge is no different to the people he claims to despise.
He wants everyone to be just like him.
A secular, humanist materialist.
And for society to be based on this, and only this, model of existence.

Isn't this just perpetuating the "us and them" concept with different terms?

Under secular humanist materialism people will be free-floating self-actualisers, "liberated" from the nasty historical entanglements of God, nation, and quaint, silly ethnic customs.

They will be morally good, without religion.
They will think only in terms of the planet as a whole, not bits and pieces carved up on a map, despite nobody actually being capable of living everywhere simultaneously.
(Isn't "planetism" just nationalism with a bigger border?)

And of course in this Utopia of free-floating secular humanist materialists, there won't be any of those nasty, silly conflicts.

Except that there are secular humanist materialists who want a *capitalist* economy and secular humanist materialists who want a *socialist* economy.

Uh-oh!

"Time, believers, to fight for what's right and good and true!
The capitalist/socialist (delete one) way!
Come, brothers and sisters. Onward to Glory! Freedom! Justice! Truth!
Some of us may die in battle today, but our war, unlike all those other stupid ones, will be worth it.
We must free mankind from the evil, false belief of capitalism/socialism (delete one), once and for all!
Charge!"