C.J. I agree about the richness of divesity to an extent. If we could maintain the 'different' mob at managable levels, all would be well.
Now.. you might take exception to that term 'managable'.. but I ask you.. lift yourself out from Australia and place yourself in say Malaysia, where the populations of 'us' (Malays/Muslims for example) is aroung 54% and the population of 'them' (Chinese) is like 40% and the rest are 'other races'.

I was flying from Vung Tau to Butterworth in 1969 in a Herc (RAAF) when the pilot told us Chinese/Malay race riots had erupted. It was very ugly for a while.
Key elements were:
a) Chinese had economic power.
b) Malays had political power. (but were economically and educationally marginalized by Chinese)

Put those together and you eventually get.... 1969

Have you looked into the various race based troubles of Indonesia ? How many have been killed. Have you scrutinized the development of the massacres in Ambon and Sulawesi ? and seen how 'shady elements' have stirred up both sides exactly as I've outlined in previous posts ?

"Managable" means controlled numbers such that there can never be a threat to peace. Even now, with the Lakemba ghetto, and numbers being relatively small to our population.. we had Cronulla. Is this the diversity you want ?

Neither you nor Pericles have adequately challenged my point that "Diversity is a time bomb" when difference is exploited by the same 'shady elements' which were at work in Indonesia.

So.. in conclusion,

1/ I agree that diversity is beneficial but....in managable numbers.
2/ Assimilation is a worthy goal as it reduces the potential for trouble, and elminates 'race/culture' based competition.

Please address the Time Bomb argument with something more substantial than sentimentality and 'we like chinese food' kind of argument.

Despite the apocalyptic fantasies of some, I remain confident that we are not on the brink of social mayhem and communal conflict - a la the 1969 riots, Ambon, Sulawesi etc. Actually, I happen to know quite a bit about the historical and cultural contexts of those deplorable incidents, and they bear little resemblance to the situation we have in Australia.

This is despite the efforts of some in our midst to foment mob violence on ethnic and religious grounds, and I'm afraid that dear old Boaz is one of the chief culprits, in this forum at least. Barely a day goes by when we're not subjected to a rant that demonises or marginalises Muslims in particular, and non-Anglos in general - often overtly encouraging a replication of the disgusting events in Cronulla. From what I know of the Christian religion, this constant encouragement of communal strife seems just a tad hypocritical.

The irony is, of course, that in the absence of "shady elements" (like Boaz, for example) who wish to stir up mob violence to further their own agendas, then it is inevitable that within a few generations we will have the kind of 'melting pot' society that he supposedly advocates. However, this end is delayed by the increasing attacks by members of the dominant culture on minority groups, which result in hardening of communal and religious boundaries and the radicalisation of some individuals located within them.

C.J. you make a reasonable case for what you are presenting, but I feel you are not considering the full picture.

The sense of cultural alienation is NOW a fact among Anglo Australians. Have a read of the feedback opinion forums on the major papers. Age, Australian SMH and Daily Telegraph, and Melbourne Herald.

You adopt the view 'she'll be right mate' which is ok, except that again..I think you are neglecting certain realities. Not all cultures in our melting pot are the same.
TODAY for example there was an article about Marrickville council having to consider signage on businesses being enforced to be in ENGLISH... why is this even an issue ? Our language IS English.
One of the Greens Councillors Saed Khan describes the idea of enforcing English (allowing ethnic language subtitle) on signage is:
a) A bad idea.
b) Possibly Illegal.

The mind truly boggles. "Bad idea" to enable most passers by to know what type of business you are or services you offer ? good grief.

Now..with this kind of mentality at work in our midst, I'm suprised you classify me with the 'dark forces' mob. The reality is... denying 90% of the population the opportunity to understand a commercial sign in a public place IS RACISM... yes.. capitals.. sorry but you don't seem to be 'getting' this.

I've spoken with the Mayor of Marrickville and he requested me put my case in writing and was very sympathetic. He is at one with the view of enforcing English on signage. Hoooray.

So, clearly, in contrast to your view that 'in a couple of generations' we will all be mixed up... the evidence is to the contrary.
So, I remain unconvinced that my articles proposals here are not needed.

Boaz, you are guilty of generalizing from the particular, and using those generalizations to promote action agaist minority groups that you disapprove of for religious reasons. That is rabble-rousing.

You claim:

>>The sense of cultural alienation is NOW a fact among Anglo Australians<<

Some Australians, perhaps.

All Australians? No, because I for one don't feel alienated.

Most Australians? A few Australians? A tiny bolshie handful of Australians?

We simply don't know, do we?

>>Have a read of the feedback opinion forums on the major papers. Age, Australian SMH and Daily Telegraph, and Melbourne Herald.<<

No self-selected sample is statistically valid, Boaz, nor yet is one that has been intermediated by a newspaper with an agenda to... sell more newspapers. The best you can say is that "there are in fact some Australians who write to the newspapers who perceive themselves to be alienated".

On a more serious note.

It is not constructive to take isolated incidents such as Cronulla, in which no-one was seriously injured, let alone killed, and compare them with the 1969 Chinese/Malay race riots, where the official death toll was 196, the Ambon massacre (I presume you mean the one in 2002) which "[killed]up to 21 people by stabbing, decapitation or burning them alive, as well as wounding many more", or Sulawesi, where about 200 Muslims were massacred.

To make these events analogous, and draw the conclusion that "diversity is a time bomb", is nothing less than rabble-rousing.

My view is that diversity plus rabble-rousing has the potential to create disturbances.

Continuous, determined, bigoted and religiously-motivated rabble-rousing has the potential to incite people to kill other people.

Diversity plus tolerance, understanding and acceptance, on the other hand, has the capacity to both allow people to live in peace, and retain the broad-based benefits that I described before.

Pericles... you also make a reasonable case. Picking at my particulars as you did assists in seeing potential holes in the general.

So, I'm forced to reflect on your words.

You didn't comment on the 'example of a trend' which I cited regarding the language of signage. This is probably more telling.
I take this as evidence that 'diversity' left unchecked, will become discrimination. Discrimination on a communal scale becomes socially problematic. The trend exacerbates 'Them/us'.

Perhaps if you were an english speaking resident of Marrickville, you might take a modified view of this issue, and the idea of social alienation ?

I recall visiting South West Sydney a year or 2 back, after having not lived there for decades. The difference was like arriving at the destination of a long journey to a different country without having taken in the scenery along the way. It was slam bam thankyou maam, welcome to little Pakistan or something. Even service station attendants dressed and spoke differently. I truly felt I had arrived in a foreign land.

I think your (and C.J.s) views are overly optimistic. I'd love to agree with both of you, but I simply cannot see it happening.
During Tampa, the 'particular' alienation you suggest cannot be generalized was pretty general down here.(Vic) I deliberately did my own survey of just about every person I met.. at random and the voices were unanimous.... 'send them away', and for the reasons of experiencing 'social invasion'.

Anyway.. about me and rabble rousing. This topic was begun to point to a direction which would avoid even the possibility of such things.
Higher levels of cross cultural marraige and networking should not deny us the richness of the diversity of culture, it just incorporates it in a less threatening way. I guarantee all the foods and many agreeable social habits would filter through to the 'New Australian' of tomorrow. We simply won't have 'Little Italy' and "little Greece" in our midst as separate entities.

I think it is on the matter of signage that we differ most on this topic, Boaz.

My first experience of this was in London. I had business reasons to check out a branch of Hongkong & Shanghai Bank in London - I think it may have been Gerrard Street, but it was some thirty years ago - and found the street signage at least 60% Chinese. The location was classic inner-city "Chinatown", with its own restaurants, grocery stores, tailors - even Banks - covered in Chinese characters.

I did not find this offensive. Nor do I find it offensive or disturbing today.

Bear in mind that it was also the time of the second oil "crisis", when the Middle Eastern countries began accumulating unaccustomed wealth. Much of this was finding its way into London, where Middle Eastern concerns were buying major hotels, and beginning to "colonise" a strip to the north of Hyde Park Corner. Arabic signs on shops became commonplace there too.

So in short, I have been long accustomed to this, and find it totally normal behaviour.

But there again, I have absolutely no problem with Greeks continuing to identify themselves with Greece, or Italians continuing to identify themselves with Italy. Their contribution to Australia has been in their differences, not in their desire to somehow become "instant anglos".

Think of it this way. If Australia had insisted that every immigrant shed the "foreign" elements of their character at the border, and were forbidden from expressing or demonstrating that they had, in fact, come from a different country, how impoverished our "culture" would quickly have become.

It is a form of inbreeding, where not only do the inbred traits become more exaggerated, but the body as a whole begins to be susceptible to sickness.