Banjo, you have said what I intended to say, and said it so well. Thanks.

I am unable to understand what Blue Cross is suggesting, why is what Banjo said irrelevant?

Why couldn't Blue Cross state his/her belief or reasons in a straight forward way?

Why does this individual sound so negative and resentful to others who don't agree with him/her?

The reason for argument is to seek truth, not to putting down others, to puff one up. Let's reason together.

Our original point is that the WAP should be understood in its historical context, not merely condemning it, and, one should present Australian immigration history in a balanced and informing way, rather than overly focusing on one issue and one negative aspect. Are those points correct? If not, why not?

No personal attack, please, we are Australians, seriously, which means we can, and should reason in a rational way.

And I am still waiting for answers from Suzeonline about the unique contributions made by Muslim immigrants to this country. I have already listed one, just to get you started, and, here is another one: female swim suits, from head to toe. Well, one may argue that the design existed long ago. However, in terms of application, muslims are the first to use diving suits as female swim suits, and it reduces the development of skin cancer. Correct me if I am wrong.

Well, suzeonline, if I, a man who resents muslim immigration, can come up with evidences that give credit to them, you are the one who embrace the coming of those population, and surely you cannot be ignorant on the benefit of their arrival!

Peng, I didn't say that what Banjo said was 'irrelevant' at all.

I was adding another dimension to what Banjo was saying through the Barry Cohen article, and said, unfortunately with a typo in it, "Banjo, not what you were focussing on, by ['by' should have been 'but'] relevant anyway."

So, what I was injecting was not what Banjo was actually highlighting, but it is still 'relevant' to the overall situation discussed, the atomisation of our community.

Please try rereading that post, there is nothing hard to understand in it.

Thanks, Blue Cross, for your clarification. Now I can see that you were adding new aspects of what Benjo has said.

Atomization, that is a good word. Are you implying that the society is fragmented? rather than united as one? I thought individualism is the backbone of a society like ours.

I have had a good fortune to have lived in societies both prevailed by collectivism and individualism. Ideally, man should find a balance between the two, but, hey, when is the man going to be born? Take it from me, individualism is the better one of the two, if there is no balance to be found.

By the way, I am still waiting for suzeonline's reply, or anyone who might be able to help.

Peng:

If you were to google, "Muslim Contributions to Australia," you'd find quite a few websites that would provide you with the information you're seeking - also - there are many histories of the Muslim Community in this country available from your local library - and it
is interesting reading - you can also pay a visit to the "Immigration Museum" in Melbourne and see their exhibit on the "Afghan Cameleers,"
and how vital they were, these camel drivers from the India sub-continent who were so vital in the early exploration of the Australian continent and the establishment of service links. Do a bit of your own research - or ask a librarian for help.

One of the most fascinating aspects of our species is the extraordinary physical and cultural diversity of its members. Yet this diversity is often a source of conflict and inequality, because human relationships are all too often shaped by the differences rather than the similarities between groups. Prejudice and discrimination are found in any situation of hostility and inequality between racial and ethnic groups. Prejudice is an irrational, inflexible, attitude toward an entire category of people. (The word literally means "prejudged.") The key feature of prejudice is that it is always rooted in generalizations and so ignores the differences among individuals. Therefore, someone who is prejudiced against Asians, or Arabs, or Jews, will tend to have a negative attitude toward any individual Asian, Arab, or Jew, in the belief that all Asians, Arabs, and Jews share the same supposed traits. People tend to think in terms of general categories, if only to enable them to make sense of the world by simplifying its complexity. People often say, "Do you believe Australia should be a multi-racial society?" The reply is - "It doesn't matter what any of us believe, it's what Australia IS, which is a society of tremendous diversity."

TBC,
Arty Calwell may have said that, I can't do anything about that 50 years on. Just as I can't do anything about the black power calls to kill whites or fanatic muslims calls to kill all infidels.
So, if you're so keen to show up some whitie saying something which 50 years later is considered racist then you should not fail to quote contempory non-whites' calls to kill whites which btw. is more than just racist.

individual, there is no 'Arty may have said that', he did.

Anyway, you avoid your answer to this,

"Now, it really is upon you to identify these people you describe as 'Stealth invaders', "The ones I'm referring to as Stealth invaders are those who only got interested once this joint was well established & coming here didn't involve having to endure hardship."

We're all agog with anticipation and excitement waiting for your detailed response.