This muddle-headed article is fraught with problems, the most obvious being the author's complete dismissal of any genetic differences between different ancestral groups (the scientifically approved euphemism for races). The reality is that genetically-distinguishable population clusters do exist.

From the New York Times:

"A genomic survey of world populations by Dr. Feldman, Noah Rosenberg and colleagues in 2002 showed that people clustered genetically on the basis of small differences in DNA into five groups that correspond to the five continent-based populations: Africans, Australian aborigines, East Asians, American Indians and Caucasians, a group that includes Europeans, Middle Easterners and people of the Indian subcontinent. The clusterings reflect “serial founder effects,” Dr. Feldman said, meaning that as people migrated around the world, each new population carried away just part of the genetic variation in the one it was derived from.

The new scans for selection show so far that the populations on each continent have evolved independently in some ways as they responded to local climates, diseases and, perhaps, behavioral situations.

The concept of race as having a biological basis is controversial, and most geneticists are reluctant to describe it that way. But some say the genetic clustering into continent-based groups does correspond roughly to the popular conception of racial groups."

As for the author's insistence that Australians celebrate 'diversity', why would they want to? History has demonstrated time and time again that ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity within the same nation is a source of strife, not strength. If you don't believe me, then take a minute to think about how many 'race riots' and other inter-ethnic problems Australia experienced prior to the advent of mass non-European immigration in the 1970s. Is anybody prepared to claim that Australia is a more cohesive, harmonious society now compared to four decades ago?

(continued below..)

Although many try to deny it, the truth is that everyone on this planet is ethnocentric to a certain degree - some groups certainly more than others. In other words, most people prefer to live among their own kind. This applies across the board, ranging from one's own extended family to entire national communities.

Those Western lefties who claim to have somehow 'transcended' ethnicity are deluding themselves. Given that many immigrant minority groups shamelessly expand their numbers and influence at the expense of the host Australian population, it's clear that the many of the groups now inhabiting the Left's multicultural fantasy land clearly do not share their vision of a race-blind society.

"Appreciating our differences is the key to solving the problems they cause."

What is it with multiculturalists and oxymoronic statements?

Emphasizing difference cannot, by definition, bring us closer together.

"If we can manage this we will put an end to race riots, once and for all. We must appreciate the diversity we have built into our multi-cultural society. After all, your hair colour matters not when you vote or work, so why should your skin colour? Let’s embrace our diversity of ancestry."

The only way we will put an end to race riots, once and for all, is to erase any distinguishable differences between different ancestral groups - not only on a national scale, but also a global scale. This would require a world-wide exchange of populations, creating an identical racial mix in every country, followed by several generations of scientifically planned and state-controlled intermarriages, resulting in a single perfectly blended human race.

Now, if only we can convince the rest of the world to agree to such a plan.

Efranke,

The article is suggesting that the "celebrate diversity" catch-cry and the ideology it represents are part of a cleverly crafted strategy to distract the general populace (us) from confronting material inequality and the social inequality based upon it. The writer muses that the "working families" mantra of the Rudd Government is a similarly devised diversion.

I think there is some important truth in Jeremy's article. "Race" is a mirage when applied as a concept to discussing social issues. So, for that matter, are a lot of other notions like "cultural Left/Right". Stop using them. Try thinking and communicating without the comfortable short-hand labels. That's when really productive thought begins.

Semantic analysis is crucial to clear thinking and productive public discussion. I put forward a similar argument about the trap of the "race" concept in my OLO article in the wake of the Cronulla riot: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4108

Efranke says: "History has demonstrated time and time again that ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity within the same nation is a source of strife, not strength."

This thesis is pure nonsense. because there is no correlation between nation and ethnic or cultural purity. It is impossible to identify a nation with racial or ethnic or cultural purity. The UK for example - before mass migration from the old empire - was made up of numbers of different peoples.

Efarnke asks: "Is anybody prepared to claim that Australia is a more cohesive, harmonious society now compared to four decades ago?" The answer is simply "Yes". We are more accepting of diversity than ever before - and a better society because of it.

As for the vision of erasing "any distinguishable differences between different ancestral groups - not only on a national scale, but also a global scale...[requiring] a world-wide exchange of populations, creating an identical racial mix in every country, followed by several generations of scientifically planned and state-controlled intermarriages, resulting in a single perfectly blended human race", Efranke must be living in cloud cuckoo land. Or smoking something very strong.

Put 'race', 'inequality' and 'economics' in an essay and people always seem drawn to the first of the three words.... *sigh*.

Thank you Crabsy, for noticing the other two.

Jeremy

Jeremy.. you said:

"The general principle here is that our commitment to diversity has redefined the opposition to discrimination as the appreciation (rather than the elimination) of difference."

I'd say it much more intensely.

Multi-culturalism has become a political tool and an industry.

It goes against every ounce of common sense, and every chapter in Histories blood soaked pages, that promoting 'difference' in anyway promotes cohesive societies.

Our 'diversity' is much more than 'celebrated' it is actively encouraged with multi cultural grants of all description.

Common sense should say that if we have funding, it should reward 'steps toward unity' and a blurring of any divesity.

In my view, cross cultural marriage is a great leap forward.

The biggest barrier to unity is.. RACISM, and this is most clearly detected in..none other than what is euphemistically called 'Celibrating diversity'
No..its RACISM.. because it emphasizes "Us/them".. and I ask this...

Why do people add an ethnic tag to 'Australian'...? If you wish to be called a 'Chinese' Australian... rather than an "Australian" what's going on? Why is there 'pride' in ones ethnicity?

"pride" (when connected to a race) is a synonym for 'racism'

ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE ONE RACE.. is my long sounded catch cry.

But.. I've also used the word 'blended'..but I'll only apply this to individual countries..not the world

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=164&page=0

will flesh out my thinking and meanings on the 'rant'

"The workers, divided will never be defeated"....wait..no, it doesn't go like that.. aaah yes..I've got it "The Workers, united, will never be defeated"...

Unity..not diversity....it's common sense.