Dear Mhaze,

«Yuyutsu tells us "First we need definitions"...and then proceeds to provide not a one!!»

Because any definitions in the social realm would be subjective.
Unlike "v=velocity, t=time, s=displacement", when it comes to human wishes we are most unlikely to agree on definitions.

What kind of society do we want, which we could then call "a success"?

Here Foxy writes, for example: "Of course national unity could become impossible if..."

Well excuse me, Foxy seems to have that subjective desire for national unity - I do not, I detest national unity, so how could Foxy and I ever agree on a definition for a "successful society"?

Yes, Rome survived for 2 millennia, that is a fact.
Was that good that it was able to harass and devastate so many people for that long, including by forcing its culture and "religion" down their throats?
- Not by my private definitions!

Nor by theirs: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/parshat-vayishlach-what-have-the-romans-ever-done-for-us/

---

Dear Canem Malum,

«I thought it was a step in the right direction that Yuyutsu realised that definitions and a baseline are necessary before trying to come up with solutions.»

But do I even want to help others to find solutions to what they consider to be their "problems", where I would be hurt by them achieving their particular goals?

---

Dear Foxy,

«Of course national unity could become impossible if
people see themselves only as members of certain
ethnic or racial groups rather than as citizens of
a common country.»

Yes, that could be ONE possible reason, among many.
How about not wishing for national unity in the first place?

Yuyutsu,

Surveys have indicated that over 80% of Australians are
fully committed to multiculturalism - the doctrine that
different cultures can co-exist peacefully and equitably
in a single country.

You question whether it's necessary to support national unity.

None of us are obliged to have unity with hateful people.
None of us are morally bound to support hearts that
discriminate against other human beings because of their skin,
their nation of origin, their gender, or their orientation.

None of us have to support people who brandish such polluted
hearts and continue to actively brandish and actively
perpetuate inequity and the stoking of division and
discrimination.

We can all be conscientious objectors in a war against this
kind of activity in this country.

Dear Foxy,

«over 80% of Australians are
fully committed to multiculturalism - the doctrine that
different cultures can co-exist peacefully and equitably
in a single country.»

What is there to "commit" to?
And why is a "doctrine" needed?

I am most happy and blessed to be surrounded by people of all different cultures,
I do not need to commit to this or have a doctrine about it - it comes naturally.

«You question whether it's necessary to support national unity.»

No, I never questioned multiculturalism - I oppose national unity, but I wouldn't dump that baby with the bath-water.

The remainder of your post indicates that you did not understand what I wrote in my previous post - please read it again.

Yuyutsu,

I think my posts are quite self-explanatory and clear.
Perhaps re-reading them may clarify things for you.

It's good to learn that you support multiculturalism.
In which case you should know what its doctrine is and
why national unity is important.

The Racial Discrimination Act came into force in 1975.
Yet despite this legal protection too many people in
this country continue to experience prejudice and
unfair treatment because of how they look or where
they come from.

Today we still have people who believe that some races
are inferior or superior to others.

And that is something as I stated early - we can all be
united against.

Dear Foxy,

I think I do understand your posts, they are clear enough,
but sometimes I do not understand why you address them, or parts thereof to me of all people, regarding issues I have not even said anything about.

«It's good to learn that you support multiculturalism.
In which case you should know what its doctrine is and
why national unity is important.»

I am most happy for multiculturalism as a living fact, not as a doctrine, and certainly not as an attempt or a means to achieve national unity, which I detest.

Yuyutsu,

You're the one who addressed me in this discussion.
I responded in a manner I thought appropriate.

Regarding multiculturalism?

I'll repeat what I stated earlier.

I view multiculturalism as a central characteristic of our
shared Australian identity alongside our First Nations
traditions and our British institutions. Our country's
identity continues to grow from pre-settlement to today
and into the future. And, I think our future with all of us
working together shall be a positive one.