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.