Otokonoko, that might have been the way you interpreted it, but I was schooled in NSW in the same time period, and I took the way black culture was taught as being a part of history, ie that the culture as it was in 1788 is not practiced any more. Might I add that colonial white culture has changed significantly in the same period.

A lot depends on the beliefs of individual teachers. I may have been lucky in the my mother believed in a broad education (books on the rainbow serpert, tiddalick, how the birds got their colours and others are still at my childood home), and my aunt spent years as a RAN in Arnhem land.

A good article by Stephen. I dont agree with all of its contents, but its a refreshing change to see someone admit that suspicion and racist leanings are not purely a white man's affliction. If we can get to that point, there is much better chance of all working together to build better outcomes for everyone.

culture as it was in 1788 is not practiced any more. Might I add that colonial white culture has changed significantly in the same period.
Country Gal,
the nature of culture is in that it evolves from when a people have reached a stage when they were able to not have to focus on mere survival which allowed them to focus on activities not related to basic survival. Activities that enabled them to forget the harsh reality of daily life. Superstition played probably the biggest role in every culture. As a matter of fact it still does.
We all agree that culture evolves so why does it come as such a big surprise to so many that after the arrival of newcomers, invaders & mere visitors age-old cultures changed. To claim that a culture is being destroyed by others is of course a well documented fact but it is not well documented that many also use culture as an excuse for their own shortcomings. If anyone knows how anything cultural at all can develop without change then I'd dearly like to know

Culture can mean very ritualised as well as very ordinary practices of how one goes about being culturally competent in one's family - and culture.

Cultural change can be imposed as well as voluntarily embraced.

A culture is a way of life of a group of people--the behaviors, beliefs, values, and symbols that they accept, generally without thinking about them, and that are passed along by communication and imitation from one generation to the next.

Stehehn Hagan wrote: "Australia was founded on the White Australia Policy that created a racial characteristic preference for its desired settlers from the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901. This federal policy played to the quintessential 20th century rugged Aussie who had an innately racist outlook..."

No, Australia was founded as a British settler society, and its immigration laws were designed to maintain the predominately British character and identity of the Australian nation.

As for 'innately racist outlooks', perhaps it will come as a shock to you, Mr. Hagan, but nearly every other nation on earth still practices discrimination against immigrants on the basis of ethnicity. Every country in Asia, for example, restricts the entry of immigrants from other ethnic groups. Thus China only allows "overseas Chinese", India only allows its “Non-Resident Indians", and Japan only allows ethnic Japanese.

Does that also make those countries 'innately racist'?

"...the preferred immigrant was British in origin and in their absence the alternative northern European Nordic race with their blue eyes and blond hair sufficed."

So why was it that the largest number of non-British European immigrants to Australia came from Southern European countries?

I suspect your mention of "Nordic race" types with "blue eyes and blond hair" is nothing more than a calculated attempt to draw an implicit parallel between 20th Century Australia and Nazi Germany, with its "Aryan" supremacist ideology.

Needless to say, such a comparison is completely inappropriate and highly offensive.

[Post continued below]

"Tom Calma... spoke of his excitement of seeing Australia by the day, becoming more diverse."

I would argue that anything that diminishes the influence and demographic position of whites would be viewed as 'exciting' among Aboriginal activists. They see non-European immigrants as a natural ally in their struggle against the white Australian majority, so no wonder people like Tom Calma are salivating at the prospect of a more 'diverse' Australia (read: a less European Australia).

"Just imagine if we didn’t have cultural diversity: no decent coffee, Indian Thai, Vietnamese, Greek or Lebanese take-away."

If "diversity" is so wonderful and beneficial, then why didn't the Aboriginals embrace "diversity" when the British first settled in 1788? Why weren't they tolerant and inclusive enough to accept the Europeans rather than attack them?

After all, those British settlers transformed this undeveloped dustbowl into a wealthy, technologically advanced country within the space of a few generations. Just imagine if they hadn't of come!

It seems somewhat hypocritical for Aboriginal activists to proclaim the joys of "diversity" on one hand, while on the other condemning the arrival of Europeans on this continent back in 1788.

Efranke,

Wonderful post, thanks, I'm going to show it to my students as an example of how not to think, act, write if you want respect and honour.