Botheration,

1)"I'm never sure what people who don't like multiculturalism actually want”

The govt to BUTT OUT would be a good starting point:
Laissez-faire – rather than govt funded funfairs.

Let Australia form its own unique identity – it will increasingly verging towards its own identity with or without an official MC policy, but having a govt sponsored MC policy only slows the process, and wastes resources.

2) “Personally, I like a good parade - and I often eat in Chinatown”

I find that most who say they are in favour of MC have this shallow understanding on the issue.They confuse pluralism, or the benefits of living in an affluent, liberal society with MC.
MC Australia has few positives which would not also be found in any affluent, liberal monocultural society.

And, when you delve below the bread & circuses, MC reals nature shows as a form of separatism–with few tangible pay-offs.

So, does "point one" display your deep, dazzling understanding of the issue and stand in stark contrast to my shallow one? If so, wow. I usually like to debate the merits of different arguments, but clearly I'm intellectually outclassed when someone *tells* me that they get it and I don't.

Sorry. That's sarcasm. As was the "love a good parade" sentiment. Was trying to point out that you were ever-so-slightly patronising.

"MC Australia has few positives which would not also be found in any affluent, liberal monocultural society."

Dunno. You've not convinced me. What monocultural societies? I love Japan, but I think Australia has more positives, most of which shelter under the multiculti umbrella. A plurality of opinion, attitude and culture. For me, the multicultural countries are the most fun - us, America, Britain. Great, English-speaking countries, reinforced with their wire mesh of disparate cultures. I feel this more because I lived two years in a monocultural country (Laos - admittedly poorer). I cannot tell you how I yearned for unfettered access to German thought, English book reviews, Scandinavian democracy, Western medicine. I wanted to see Spanish installation art and hear Japanese dub. Call me shallow, but yes, I yearned for omelets. And I wanted to see Warney spin.

Horus, I do appreciate your political view. I disagree with small government types, but I have often worked with them in the philanthropic world, where a "fair go" ethos can transcend party politics and we all agree to tap the uber-rich. But you've said nothing to convince me that a bit of federal money (not a lot) thrown at multiculti causes doesn't make Australia a slightly cooler place to live. Plus, if you're doing sums, what's the opportunity cost? For example, multiculturalism has been of huge advantage when it comes to foreign policy and diplomatic relations. Can you measure that? Can you offset it?

Dazzle me.

Just by the by, do you also want a laissez-faire approach to immigration? I don't advocate open borders. Why not keep some control of our borders but implement policies that encourage a strong, cohesive society?

You may call it patronising – sorry–but you really do see MC in those terms:It seems it was the monoculturalist nature of Laos – rather than underdevelopment– which stopped you having access to “English book reviews” or “western medicine”. So following on from that, I could safely assume that if went to Japan
( or “France”) I would also miss such joys of MC.And, it would not be too far fetched to guess I’d also be restricted to one type of cuisine & find the study of English outlawed (pull the other leg!).

( & by the by, how much “unfettered access to German thought” or “Spanish installation art", or Salman Rushdie literature or Danish cartoons for that matter, do you think you’d find in Bradford within MC, enriched England ?)

Core MC is not having access to foreign periodicals (or cuisine)
It is rather proactively trying to entrench mores & identities which would otherwise wither away.

The plurality you relish in Aust is the not the result of MC cross-fertilisation.It was present long before MC. It was a traditional core value in the dominant culture. A number of the more recently introduced cultures do not harbour such traditional plurality www.csmonitor.com/2003/0630/p09s01-coop.html

And I put it too you that govt sponsorship of MC (& I include Fed, state, local) is not insubstantial. Many would be surprised by the extend of financial support for ethnic media, arts & NGOs.

And as for MC being an advantage to our foreign policy. It is very much a two edged sword .There are as least as many negatives as positives. ( some of our MC sons & daughters as in the
London bombers.1 & .2 believed that if they could change our foreign policy –they’d revert to their traditional modes of fixing things ).

I have a theory call it Horus’s theory of MC - the further you are from an MC induced enclave, the more interesting you find MC

Tom Calma and the HREOC apparently believe "Traditional Owners" living in their "Traditional homelands" communities and houses do NOT have

- right for family to live with them ;

- right for family to visit them ;

- right for friends to visit or stay with them ;

- right for qualified tradespeople to visit and conduct repairs ;

- right to run a business under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions;

- right to construct or live in a house (under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions) ;

- right to obtain a fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions lease for their home (constructed with government monies) ;

- right to work (under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions) ;

- right to receive legal assistance to have legal issues arising considered judicially ;

HREOC with Ron Wilson decided a public hearing into these issues should NOT occur...

Likely Tom Calma and Co were amongst those objecting to the efforts from Mal Brough to have the private land owners - the Land Trusts, issue all their tenants valid leases for the houses almost all constructed from public funding... such apparently unreasonable....

Activities elsewhere repugnant it seems are fine in Tom Calma's topsy turvey world of "racial rights" ...

Oh lordy, Horus. What do you think I was doing in South East Asia for two years? Working for Coca-Cola? Of course I'm interested in underdevelopment. I'm the first to admit there's more I can do, but I have worked on development projects in poor countries, and I hope to do so again. The experience of living in that environment was one of the most amazing of my life, but it's also my only experience of truly living in a monoculture, so I was simply trying to explain what that felt like.

I can tell that, for whatever reason, you feel quite superior to me in your understanding. Fine, but don't let that cloud your argument. I'd be more persuaded by your vision for the future than your dissertations on my failings - I already know about them!

As for funding, while "I put it to you" has a nice, mother-country, Rumpole-of-the-Bailey-esque ring to it, evidence it is not. I have no idea what proportion of federal and state money is spent on multiculti good works, but clearly neither do you, so perhaps we should both do some research.

Hope you had a fantastic Christmas & do have a happy new year.

"Between 1820 and 1979, more than 49 million immigrants came to live in the USA. Historians are pretty unanimous on the effect these frontier-people had on America as they sailed in past the Statue of Liberty toward Ellis Island - they helped make it the most powerful and influential nation on Earth."

Botheration's effusively romantic account of the U.S. experience with immigration overlooks the historical reality that up until 1965, the overwhelming majority of immigrants to the U.S. were from European countries. That cannot be said for the masses of Third Worlders now flooding into the country. Moreover, 'Americanization', not multiculturalism, was the prevailing orthodoxy of the day. "Diversity", especially of a non-European variety, was certainly not encouraged.

"To say it's been "an abject failure" (as Dresdener did) is clearly silly from any reasonable viewpoint..."

Dewy-eyed supporters of multiculturalism never tire of proclaiming that ethnically and culturally 'diverse' societies are more desirable places to live. Colourful street festivals and a vast variety of culinary delights are chief among the happy-clappy benefits the multiculturalists invoke. But where is there a successful multi-ethnic country? History is rife with examples of failed multi-ethnic states. Advocates of multiculturalism invariably point to Australia and Canada as examples of multicultural utopias, conveniently overlooking the large Anglo-European majorities that essentially hold those nations together. Without these core ethno-cultural majorities, it's likely such multicultural wonderlands would be reduced to discordant hodgepodges of competing ethnic groups.

"...the vast majority of Australians live and work with people from other cultures in safety and harmony every single day."

I suspect many Australians are disconcerted by the buildup of non-assimilating diasporic communities in their midst. They've witnessed first-hand the immigration-driven cultural and ethnic transformations of their communities into something they no longer recognise as their own. But, in a nation ruled by political correctness, to publicly question multiculturalism or unprecedented levels of immigration is to invite scorn, ostracism and outright character assassination.