HI ASymeonakis

Re: ‘92% has at least one parent who was born in Australia’. This means of the 92%, some have one parent born overseas and one parent born in Australia and the rest of that 92% have both parents born in Australia. It does NOT mean that 92% have one parent born overseas.

I also question your definition of the word ‘native’. Actually the word native means ‘belonging to a person by birth’ and one’s native country is ‘the place or environment in which one was born’ (Macquarie Dictionary 3rd edition).

My point is that the label ‘immigrant nation’ (and its continual use) implies that the majority of Australians have just arrived from elsewhere. I feel it is time to move on from a term that perhaps served a purpose a long time ago and look at the full implications of its continued use. One of the negative consequences is that many young Australians are pressured to think of themselves as migrants, rather than native Australians, simply because they have some migrant ancestry. Is it fair to refer to second generation, third generation (and so on) Australians as migrants?

And Ginx, I’m flummoxed by your post.

You said: ‘I am still perplexed by your denial of immigrant influence in the building of this nation, Australia.’

I don’t understand this point. At no time have I denied the immigrant influence and neither would I. In fact I celebrate it. The contribution and influence of Australia’s migrants is to be celebrated and honoured in the same way as the contribution and influence of native Australians should be.

And neither do I understand your second point when you say: ‘was that we ALL refer to Australia as...well,..Australia!’

I thought that was the point I was making – that we do not need to label Australia.

Hi Foxy

In your last post you referred to me as ‘excluding others’. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. At no time have I suggested anyone be excluded. Perhaps you are simply being mischievous as your name suggests.

I am not questioning the facts, as you suggest. I am questioning the application of a term that is probably outdated and is causing discomfort to some people in our society. In particular it saddens me to see confusion and distress in young people who consider themselves native Australians and want to be viewed as such but are perceived by society as migrants.

And I am sorry you thought we were arguing. I thought I was simply trying to clarify a point you misunderstood because as far as I can see we are actually in agreement much of the time and I do thank you for the discussion.

I am not sure what you mean by the ‘you tell ‘em’ mob.

I know what you mean, Holy Moly. I've got a friend who's Asian Australian, who'll frequently have people ask her "where she comes from", to which she responds, "Canberra", and they they say, "but where originally?" to which she responds, "Canberra".

As I understand it, you're not denigrating the contribution of immigrants, simply saying that it's not true that *all* Australians think of themselves, or indeed are, immigrants.

I think, however, that you are being a bit oversensitive in your response to the term "nation of immigrants". For a start, who says it? Our former treasurer, two years ago? Is that it? People often point out we've got a proud immigrant heritage, but you don't deny that. I don't think I often hear "immigrant nation" in our national discource.

Even if we did, I don't think anyone using that expression really means 100% of Australians are immigrants. The point is *most* of our ancestors emigrated to get here, we've all got 'em in the family, we are a multi-racial country and that has deeply affected our culture.

Also, while I agree some people may feel boxed in by their ancestry, others enjoy the connection to a long abandoned homeland. I cannot speak the language of the country my grandparents came from, I feel completely Australian, yet nevertheless I enjoy that connection, I visit the country, I keep it in my heart.

Saying that Australia is NOT a country of immigrants could be (to some) just as insulting as saying we are. The fact is that, as a nation, as a federation, we are a very young country, and our provenance is all over the shop. Every descriptor is too narrow.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your point, and I think it's good for us to be reminded that, as diverse as Australia is, it's also good remember our common ancestors and remind ourselves that we're first and foremost Australians.

By the way, did you write the article Foxy linked to? Or do you just relate to it? You have cut and pasted from it, I notice.

"...Take the example of a young Australian girl I know with Greek great grandparents. She is often distressed by people asking her about the Greek culture and implying that she is Greek when in fact she simply thinks of herself as Australian. She wants (and deserves) to be thought of as Australian..."

I understood your point by this excellent example. BUT it does not automatically follow that we must in some way deliberately subjugate the influence of the immigrant in the creating of Australia as a nation, because some might feel like your Greek friend.

"..Our history, and therefore our country, is far too varied to be encompassed by any label. Why do we need a label, anyway? Isn’t the word ‘Australia’ enough.."

THAT'S what I meant. What label?? We DO say 'Australia'! What 'label' are you referring to?

Let's agree to mutual flummoxation(!)HM. You started this thread; any responses you have received are based on your initial statements. If we are not understanding each other ,then it has emanated from that point!

Hi Vanilla.

Your post is eloquently expressed.

The term ‘immigrant nation’ is still being used so I wasn’t just referring to our former treasurer but rather picking up on the sensitivity of those I interact with as well as my own sense of alienation when I hear it.

However you have made some excellent points and I thank you for joining in the discussion.

Dear Holy Moly,

Vanilla does more than just express herself eloquently. She usually
presents more than a one-sided argument on any given subject.
Which makes her one of the best posters on this Forum.

She also rarely loses her self-control, which in a Forum such as this - says a great deal.

You asked about the 'You tell 'em love!' mob that I referred to in my previous post.

In the late 1950s - 60s, being self-consciously 'Australian' became a subject of entertainers and the newspapers. While Australian television shows like 'Skippy' (about life in a national park as seen through the adventures of a tame kangaroo) were popular, the character of the Aussie housewife was mocked by the clever skits of
over-the-fence-natter by the Australian actress Dawn Lake.
"You tell 'em love!" became the symbol of the tea-sipping-hair-in-curlers-gossip-over-the-fence-brigade.

Later, this humour was turned to the 'Ocker' male, in the style of Graham Kennedy and the writing of Nino Culotta, and the city suburbs became the backdrop for the new Aussie image. Now the language of the pub-crawling, hard-working, dry-witted Aussie gained popularity.
"You drongo," or "He's a galah!" became the accompaniment to the traditional "bloody bastard."

The suburban life and well-being of Australian society became the butt of many jokes, and the intolerance towards 'new Australians' and
'coloureds' was sent up as an unjustifiable prejudice.

It wasn't until the 1970s that the Ocker Aussie was packaged for world consumption in films and comics, but once done, the exaggerated image of 'Bazza (Barry) MacKenzie' became one which many Australians were no longer so proud of.

This critical self-consciousness had become more and more apparent in the late 1960s, and forced both politicians and the public to revise not only policies but also many of their long-held and cherished notions about themselves and the rest of the world.

Perhaps that will eventually happen to our overall sense of National Identity - and we shall be able to finally see that we are indeed -
(all of us) - Australians.

For some, it's still a long way off yet ...

Apparently.