Hi Trumpster,

"Some proponents mistakenly cite religious doctrine as justification for banning those who would engage in FGM. Both international and Australian Islamic religious authorities have strongly condemned FGM, noting it has no basis in religious doctrine."

There are some Anglo-Celtic Christians in Australia that practice polygamy, notably the Mormon religion of which there are 157,000 devotees in Australia allowing polygamy which is illegal in Australia. Could there be over 50,000 polygamists right under our noses? No room for those types in our monocultured society.

Trumpster, I did some investigation as to what our Anglo-Celtic British Monoculture would be like for us. This is it! Is that YOU front right? I like your outfit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gar-h8VRs28

I found this mob of ethnics trying to impose their culture on us, how ridiculous they look, give me that above sensible British culture any day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfcy2JBdSA0

Doubt there has ever been a society that pursues mono-culturalism as all borrow ideas and influences from others.

Listening to Hansen is a sad reminder of the past, albeit I too think the concept of multiculturalism has many problems given that all societies are rightfully interested in cultural integration to some extent.

"Doubt there has ever been a society that pursues mono-culturalism ..."

There are no monocultural societies on the planet and haven't been for millennia. But, depending on how you define monoculturalism, there are plenty of such societies today and in the recent past. Recognising multiculturalism as an effort to make all cultures in the society as equal and equally valid, then monoculturalism is an effort to treat the dominant culture as superior - and there a plenty of examples of that now and in the recent past.

_____________________________________________________________________

"Some proponents mistakenly cite religious doctrine as justification for banning those who would engage in FGM."

Well lucky I didn't say that then, eh?

_____________________________________________________________________

mikk,

"I already did [prove the claim]."

Rubbish. you asserted without evidence that "There have been plenty of convictions over the years [for FGM]". You have not provided any evidence for that claim but when challenged reached for the 'hate-speech' all-purpose defence.

____________________________________________________________________

"You've responded to a question about cultural subversion with a list of social problems. "

We have these problems (and again these were mere examples of a much bigger issue) because of the reluctance to promote our values against the values of these other supposedly equal cultures. In a society where Anglo-European culture dominates, people don't randomly shoot women and children because they are the wrong race. It tells destitute aboriginals and aboriginal women suffer domestic violence at extraordinary levels that its mainly because of their failed culture.

I've told this story before which sums it up....
"Hindu priests complained to Charles Napier (then Commander-in-Chief of British forces in India) about the prohibition of suttee by British authorities. Suttee was the custom of burning widows alive on the funeral pyre of their husbands. Napier replied:

“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

Well, that was a much stronger argument than your last reply to me, mhaze.

You're now describing a mechanism rather than simply listing examples. But I think you're still conflating two separate claims:

- Australia should be more willing to criticise harmful cultural practices.
- Anglo-European culture is being displaced.

They aren't the same thing.

Your Napier example is interesting because it describes a dominant culture enforcing its laws and values.

Yet Australia already does precisely that:

- FGM is illegal.
- Forced marriage is illegal.
- Domestic violence is illegal.
- Terrorism is illegal.

The existence of people who commit those acts doesn't demonstrate that Australian culture has been displaced.

Likewise:

- Racially motivated violence has occurred in Anglo-European societies throughout history.
- Aboriginal disadvantage can exist without demonstrating the displacement of Anglo-European culture.
- Harmful cultural practices can exist without demonstrating the displacement of Anglo-European culture.

Again, the question isn't whether social problems exist. The question is whether their existence demonstrates that Anglo-European culture is losing its dominant position.

Your examples demonstrate criminal behaviour, social dysfunction, cultural conflict, and policy disagreements. What they don't demonstrate is the displacement of Anglo-European institutions, laws, values or norms.

So I still don't see the evidence that Anglo-European culture is being replaced. What I see is evidence that social problems continue to exist despite the continuing dominance of Anglo-European institutions, laws and norms.

JD,

"So I still don't see the evidence that Anglo-European culture is being replaced"

You keep on asserting that I asserted something that, despite your assertion that I asserted it, I didn't assert. You keep saying replaced. I never have.

Anglo-European culture won't be replaced at least not in our lifetimes barring a catastrophic military overthrow. But it is being diminished, watered-down, having the things that are its most relevant features subtly inverted.

It was once fine to tell other cultures where they were deficient. Now we cannot even tell clearly disadvantaged aboriginals that the cause is their culture. It was once verboten to resort to lethal violence to make political capital. Now we are too scared of being called racist to intercept it before deaths ensue.

Sure lots of things are banned - FGM, DV etc. But when they occur in protected cultures, we are required to avert our gaze lest we offend their cultural sensibilities. There are effectively no prosecutions for FGM, but great efforts to treat the victims without looking for the perpetrators. DV is illegal but in the place where it is most prevalent - the aboriginal community - again, the root causes are papered over.

The unpopularity of the multiculturalism project isn't an important issue in the great scheme of the things as regards Australia's decline. But it is symptomatic of a people who understand that they are being taken for a ride.

mhaze,

Let's go through this step by step. Earlier, you argued that multiculturalism had become:

"a project to support minority cultures OVER the dominant culture"

and that we were being asked:

"to actively allow foreign cultures to exist in and subvert Anglo-European culture in an Anglo-European nation."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10799#376412

Those are strong claims.

But the examples you've now given are:

"the reluctance to promote our values"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10799#376451

and now

"we are too scared of being called racist"

as well as

"our reluctance to point out that their destitution is the direct result of their culture."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10799#376454

Those are claims about people's willingness to criticise certain cultural practices. They are not examples of minority cultures being promoted over Anglo-European culture, nor do they demonstrate foreign cultures subverting Anglo-European culture.

You've made two different claims. One is about cultures being promoted over Anglo-European culture. The other is about people's willingness to criticise certain cultural practices.

Even your Napier example is about the willingness of a dominant culture to enforce its values. Yet Australia already prohibits FGM, forced marriage, domestic violence, and terrorism.

So the issue you're describing is not whether Anglo-European values remain dominant in law, but whether they are asserted forcefully enough in public debate.

That is a much narrower argument than the one you began with.