As Australia becomes more diverse than ever as a result of our liberal immigration policies, we are confronted with several important questions: Is too much ethnic diversity a dangerous thing, or should we welcome into our country with open arms a never-ending flow of peoples from all nations across the planet? How much diversity can Australian society reasonably accommodate before it becomes incoherent and fragmented? When does a cultural melting pot turn into a social pressure cooker?

Dr. Frank Salter, an Australian urban anthropologist and ethologist, has done some interesting research on ethnic diversity.

According to Salter:

"Cross-cultural comparisons reveal the wisdom of Australia's first prime minister Edmund Barton who believed that ethnic homogeneity must be the cornerstone of Australian nation-building. More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, are more resistant to external shocks, and are better global citizens, for example by giving more foreign aid. Moreover, they are less prone to civil war, the greatest source of violent death in the twentieth century."

Salter notes that "multi-ethnic societies are often confronted with the problem of discrimination and group conflict." He also points out that it is often the original majority group who suffer the most as a result of immigration-induced diversity:

"They are pushed out of areas of employment and business; they suffer from the higher rates of crime often shown by immigrant communities; they become the minority is poorer suburbs; and they sense a threat to their continuity as a people belonging to a particular place. They observe that the newcomers have a different group identity, one that excludes them, and that where there were few, now there are many. They sense, sometimes with justification, that they are losing their country."

"When Diversity Meets Ethnic Kinship: Interesting Times?", The Independent Australian, Issue No. 16, Spring 2008

Considering the myriad challenges that extreme diversity creates, how much more diversity should we be expected to accommodate?

Drab, go back fifty years and crunch the numbers on Local crime, especially drug related.

I will guarantee the number of crimes committed by immigrants have sky rocketed.

That should answer your question.

It's a matter of when, not if, we have a terrorists strike on our own soil and I will bet my bottom dollar the attack is not from one within.

My view on the matter is that if we can't do in their country what they can do, or expect to do in ours, then the door should be closed. No if's no but's about it!

If one wishes to move to Australia, then they should act like Australians, follow our laws, and most certainly not try to change our way of life.

The biggest mistake we made was when our governments introduced the ideology of multiculturalism. We can blame both liberal and labor for this.

Have a look at the ethnic problems we have and if that does not convince you, have a look at Europes and Uk social problems.

Noticed the other day that there are now so many Latinas in the USA that both parties have policies specifically for latinas and put them in languages other than English.

How long before the muslim communities here start flexing their political mussles? It will not be long before those groups that practice FGM will start claiming we accept it and it is now part of our culture. Then comes polygamy and other alien cultural practices. Very soon sharia laws are introduced. Our culture is being eroded every day.

Thanks, drab, for introducing me to the works of Dr Salter, who would appear at first glance to be yet another academic pin-up boy of the anti-immigration brigade.

(An interesting side-note: compare the wikipedia entry for Dr Salter at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Salter with his own "brief intellectual history" at http://edna.machighway.com/~franksal/Site/Bio.html It's just a little narcissistic, doncha think, to write your won wikipedia entry as if you were actually famous... but I digress)

To use Salter's broad generalizations as excerpted here to frame the question "how much more diversity" can we support in Australia is somewhat suspect. Perhaps, drab, you can point us to the full article - it is sadly absent from any of the sites I could find - so that we can debate the substance, rather than just the sound-bites you have selected for us.

Would that be possible, do you think?

Our culture is being eroded every day.
Banjo,
Unfortunately it takes someone smarter than the everyday Australian to see that.

Pericles says

"Perhaps, drab, you can point us to the full article - it is sadly absent from any of the sites I could find - so that we can debate the substance, rather than just the sound-bites you have selected for us."

I wouldnt bother if I were you drad, since from this earlier statement of his
" Dr Salter, who would appear at first glance to be yet another academic pin-up boy of the anti-immigration brigade."

It is pretty clear that Pericles has already formed his opinion and any further reading will only to find fault.

You make it sound like a situation of rocks and hard places, KarlX… Is there fault to be found with further reading? Do you know something we don't?

Why not vindication? Surely evidence should be allowed to be presented.

It only seems fair since drab has had the benefit of the whole article. Presumably.

For me, before I devote any more time to Dr Salter, I want to see the statistics behind the statement, "Moreover, they [ethnically homogeneous nations] are less prone to civil war, the greatest source of violent death in the twentieth century."

The hilarious thing is, if the DNA of most of the posters here was analysed, it would reveal that they had mostly Slavic or Middle-Eastern roots in their biological origins.

(I once watched a show anlaysing some quintessential English people, and that's exactly what the scientists found)

Poirot,
You may be right but, are we not talking about cultural differences rather than genetics or DNA?

At least that is what i assumed Drab was writing about.

There are vast differences in cultures.

I take your point, Banjo. But it does demonstrate that human migration and close interaction between peoples of different cultures is a distinct trait in our species.

Simple answer to the question just look at all the problems England has with all the different ethnic immigrants they took in. The country is now stuffed.

Poirot,
I know you think Anglophobia is funny but you're so wrong it's laughable in itself
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry/

Why diversity is not a strength, podcast by Mark Weber:
http://reasonradionetwork.com/downloads/tmwr/VoR-The_Mark_Weber_Report-20120620.mp3

Phiilp.
The U.K is not "stuffed" parts of it are, as they say "Broken" due to immigration, what their society does show us is that equality, liberty and fraternity are impossible in "diverse" societies and that the more racially diverse a society becomes the poorer and less just it will be.
Support for multiracial societies has no scientific, moral or economic basis, there is no reason whatsoever for non European
people to be living in Europe, people who far from "enriching" those societies leave them worse off at the end of each day.
Regarding our own country it's always been diverse and multicultural but the problem here is that, as noted above assimilation and civic Nationalism are the bedrock of Australia's take on diversity. We now have increasing numbers of not only unassimilable migrants but of overtly hostile and antagonistic peoples who set about attacking either the society as a whole or single out individual elements within the community.
The problems between Jews and Muslims or between Sunni and Shia, Fundamentalist and Liberal or Chinese vs White Australian cannot be resolved by promoting civic loyalty or "tolerance", listen to the podcast in the link above.
Nobody trusts the state these days, nobody looks to the government or civil service for leadership, nobody trusts journalists or social commentators and absolutely nobody truly believes we are still a Nation, in any sense of the word. We are an atomised society with few common values, few widely held opinions or beliefs and no trust in one another as neighbours or fellow citizens, this cannot be spun as a moral good and obviously the prospects for our future are no longer a cause for hope or a driver of ambition.

Jay Of Melbourne - I will agree with a lot of what you wrote.
My comment re Britain was a bit broad as out of the big cities it is still relatively ethnically free from what is in the big cities.
I have no problem with refugees who in moderate numbers come to Australia but I have a problem with welfare for lifers, ones who expect everything for nothing, ones who get here then tell all there mates come see what these idiots give me for free, ones who do not even try to assimilate or learn English. A condition of entry they have to work no more free ride.

Thanks Phillip
We do see assimilation by some younger third world migrants but it's not assimilation into Australian society, they adopt the culture of the American "Ghetto" Negro, even to the extent of mimicking their patois and mannerisms. The pro immigration people seem to believe that because Sudanese or Afghan youths, for example dress and speak like a street person from Detroit that they are "assimilating", it's hard to believe that anyone could be pleased with such an outcome given that American Negroes themselves are in the main scornful of "Ghetto" lifestyle, a sub culture which nobody honestly could be proud of.

WmTrevor asks
"KarlX… Is there fault to be found with further reading? Do you know something we don't?"

I don't know much about the article but have enough grounding in psychology to know that if someone starts off with the comment
" Dr Salter, who would appear at first glance to be yet another academic pin-up boy of the anti-immigration brigade."

He is not likely to be opened minded about the issue

You misrepresent the nature of my enquiring mind, KarlX.

>>I don't know much about the article but have enough grounding in psychology to know that if someone starts off with the comment "Dr Salter, who would appear at first glance to be yet another academic pin-up boy of the anti-immigration brigade." He is not likely to be opened minded about the issue<<

You surely "have enough grounding in psychology to know" that when a poster quotes an academic source in order to kick off a thread designed to show how horrible immigration is, and how it is destroying our society, it is quite possible that those quotes are a) highly selective, and b) a poor reflection on the intent of the academic in question.

Clearly, the learned professor has, nolens volens, lent his research to the cause of an opponent of immigration. So it is of some interest, to me at least, to learn whether he is being quoted in context, accurately, and in line with the general thrust of his article.

It is not his fault that he has become the latest pin-up boy, in the same way that Kylie Minogue never set out to be a gay icon at the Mardi Gras.

Hence my - perfectly reasonable, I think - request to be in a position to debate the source's substance, and not just the sound-bites that drab has chosen for us.

Pericles says

"it is destroying our society, it is quite possible that those quotes are a) highly selective, and b) a poor reflection on the intent of the academic in question [...] it is of some interest, to me at least, to learn whether he is being quoted in context, accurately, and in line with the general thrust of his article [...] Hence my - perfectly reasonable, I think - request to be in a position to debate the source's substance, and not just the sound-bites that drab has chosen for us"

KarlX responds

And I might swallow that alibi were it not for the fact that you recently came out of the closet to express your preference for immigrants over locals

" Most immigrants are hard-working self-starters, who tend to show up the locals as laid-back loafers"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5277#144565

And have more than once growled down other writers who in your view didn't like foreigners

So with those things in mind I cant help but think any research you might conduct on the source would be a fault finding expedition.

That makes more sense, KarlX.

>>And I might swallow that alibi were it not for the fact that you recently came out of the closet to express your preference for immigrants over locals<<

We can now agree that your assessment of my position was not based on the "evidence" that as you originally presented, and you are instead using random material - incidentally describing it as a "preference", which is a false conclusion - from an unrelated thread.

Fair enough.

But I don't necessarily agree that my motivation for asking the question actually disqualifies the question itself. In fact, it would appear that my assumed motivation is being used as an excuse for not answering, wouldn't you think?

If we applied your logic in Parliament, the Prime Minister would be able to deflect any of the opposition's questions, with the statement "well, I know you're going to disagree with me, so I'm not going to tell you why I said that, so nerny nerny ner ner."

Actually, that might be a step up from the normal exchanges. But you still get my point.

Pericles,

Let's get real - your main objection here is not my use (or misuse) of quotes but the fact that I have raised some critical questions about immigration-induced diversity that you clearly do not feel comfortable with. Rather than address the questions raised in my initial post, it seems you would prefer to snidely dismiss me as an "opponent of immigration" - classic immigration enthusiast code for anyone who, well, isn’t - and misrepresent my entire post as "a thread designed to show how horrible immigration is, and how it is destroying our society." To use your own words: you misrepresent the nature of my enquiring mind.

You are correct about one thing: the article I quoted is not available online. Rather, it appeared in a dead-tree publication that is no longer in print. However, luckily for you, Dr. Salter has published a number of other works that you can find online.

If you genuinely doubt that Dr. Salter was quoted in context, accurately, and in line with the general thrust of his published works, then I suggest you read Dr. Salter's article:

"The Misguided Advocates of Open Borders", Quadrant Magazine - http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2010/6/the-misguided-advocates-of-open-borders

Also be sure to read his much longer treatise on ethnic genetics interests:

"Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is It Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?", Population & Environment - http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/saltermigration1.pdf

I find it interesting that you were able to find Salter's website and wikipedia entry (and even post an irrelevant critique) but you couldn't find the time to read any of his readily available online published works. Could it be because your more interested in "playing the man, not the ball?"

KarlX wrote: "And I might swallow that alibi were it not for the fact that you recently came out of the closet to express your preference for immigrants over locals."

Pericles's derogatory comments about local "laid-back loafers" are revealing but hardly surprising: many immigration enthusiasts harbour a deep-seated animus towards native-born Australians, specifically those of Anglo-Celtic descent.

Of course, we could point out that it was the ancestors of those very "laid-back loafing" locals who built this country - and all of its infrastructure and industries - with the expectation that they would be able to pass it on to their offspring, rather than see it confiscated for the benefit of foreign peoples.

The main point, though, is that, despite all their inane rhetoric about promoting "tolerance", a significant number of immigration enthusiasts are, in fact, motivated by a deep intolerance. I would argue that the onus is on them to demonstrate that their support for mass immigration is not driven by a desire to undermine the position or interests of long-standing Australians.

Correction: "I find it interesting that you were able to find Salter's website and wikipedia entry (and even post an irrelevant critique) but you couldn't find the time to read any of his readily available online published works. Could it be because you're more interested in "playing the man, not the ball?"

rehctub wrote: "I will guarantee the number of crimes committed by immigrants have sky rocketed. That should answer your question."

The real question is whether or not the foreign-born population commits a disproportionately higher amount of crime. As far as I can tell, no government department collects such data, but I did come across this interesting OLO article on ethnicity and crime:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=991

The glaring lack of statistics on ethnic and immigrant crime is telling. In his book "The Conspiracies of Multiculturalism", Greg Clancy argues that governments have consistently turned a blind-eye to ethnic crime in order to prevent the stigmatisation of certain ethnic minority groups. This has mean that ethnic crime has been allowed to flourish under the protection of the multicultural industry.

The following report may be of some interest:

http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications/organised-crime-australia/organised-crime-australia-2011-report

Click onto the Introduction and other features for an
overview. Its quite interesting - shows how broad and
global the range is.

Poirot wrote: "The hilarious thing is, if the DNA of most of the posters here was analysed, it would reveal that they had mostly Slavic or Middle-Eastern roots in their biological origins."

And what is your point?

Whatever it is, you are incorrect in claiming that British-descended people are of recent Slavic or Middle-Eastern genetic origin.

Consider:

"In the words of Oxford University geneticist Bryan Sykes in his new book Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland [published in the United Kingdom under the title Blood of the Isles]:

"We are an ancient people …"

The family trees of the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish are overwhelmingly indigenous to the British Isles since far back into prehistoric times. The title of Sykes' first chapter, "Twelve Thousand Years of Solitude," summarizes this finding. The "average settlement dates" in the Isles for the ancestors of modern British and Irish people, he estimates, were around 8,000 years ago.

...

Sykes' team obtained DNA samples from 10,000 individuals in the United Kingdom and Ireland and reviewed genetic records for 40,000 more. They looked at functionally trivial mutations in the Y-chromosome to group each man into clans based on patrilineal lines of descent (e.g., Abraham begat Isaac who begat Jacob who begat …). And they examined mitochondrial DNA to group individuals into matrilineal descent clans.

From his database, Sykes concludes that the majority of the genes of the peoples of the British Isles are descended from the oldest of the modern inhabitants: Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, who began arriving 10,000 years ago from Continental Europe after the end of the last Ice Age, as soon as the islands became habitable again."

http://www.vdare.com/articles/its-official-british-aka-americas-founders-not-diverse-at-all

http://www.amazon.com/Saxons-Vikings-Celts-Genetic-Britain/dp/0393330753/ref=la_B001H6J09S_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1347312075&sr=1-3

If you did, drab, then they are practically invisible.

>>Pericles, Let's get real - your main objection here is not my use (or misuse) of quotes but the fact that I have raised some critical questions about immigration-induced diversity that you clearly do not feel comfortable with.<<

You instead posed a highly loaded question.

>>Is too much ethnic diversity a dangerous thing, or should we welcome into our country with open arms a never-ending flow of peoples from all nations across the planet?<<

The nature of your question is precisely the same as those phrased in the vein "is population growth a dangerous thing, or should we continue to countenance exponential growth until the planet is destroyed?"

In doing so, you made your position - an "opponent of immigration" - crystal clear.

So there is no point backpeddalling, pretending that you had merely opened a debate in a spirit of purest enquiry. It simply does not wash.

I did read up on the man, by the way. My "pin-up-boy" comment was deliberate.

He is being used, not only by you, but by a variety of organs slightly more open in their hostility towards immigrants. Here's one I prepared earlier.

"...we seem to completely ignore the large scale effects of public policies on our greater “extended family”–the racial and ethnic groups to which we belong. Concerned individuals have awaited a comprehensive and honest study of these issues. The wait is over. Dr. Frank Salter has published just such an analysis..."

http://www.toqonline.com/blog/ethnic-genetic-interests/

And the part they had been waiting for?

"In the long run, territory is crucial for survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by migrants, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction–precisely what is happening in the “multicultural” West today."

But you do make an interesting observation...

>>we could point out that it was the ancestors of those very "laid-back loafing" locals who built this country<<

But they stopped, didn't they. Meanwhile, out in the Pilbara...

This discussion is getting into dangerous waters.
You need to be careful here as you are moving from political discussion
to racial discussion and the law can be fired up by anyone who decides
they have been offended.

At the risk of being caught in a very wide net I also am opposed to the
very high immigrant intake. For instance there seems to be a builtin
Arab tendancy to settle things such as religious differences with bombs.
The antagonism between Shia & Sunni goes all the way back to the death
of Mohammad. It is like the Roman Church/Protestant wars in Europe
except that was settled after a hundred years or so.

I suspect their attitude to these things is genetic due to their very
long practice of marrying their cousins.
Generally, they do seem to have very different attitudes to
Celtic/Scandinavian/German practices.
No, we have to accept that there are differences and they are fundamental.
The question you need to ask yourselves is;
"Do you want to live in a transported Arab or Chinese Society ?".

Pericles says

"And the part they had been waiting for?

'In the long run, territory is crucial for survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by migrants, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction–precisely what is happening in the 'multicultural' West today.' "

Now apparently Pericles sees some fault with that, though he has not shared it with us.It is not PC I will grant him that but its pretty close to the mark.

Then Pericles has this to say

"But you do make an interesting observation...

>>we could point out that it was the ancestors of those very "laid-back loafing" locals who built this country<<

But they stopped, didn't they."

"They stopped?"

Where do you live Pericles -- cloud nine?

Where I live I see the descendants go out to work in hard yakka positions every day and often every night too.

Bazz,

I find it somewhat disturbing - the asumptions
that you're making about certain groups of
people. Not all Arabs or Chinese are wanting to
convert this country into something from which
they ran in the first place. You're referring to
fundamentalists - and fundamentalists exist in
all sorts of groups.

From your posts it seems that your notions of
nationhood are incompatible with diversity.

Your beliefs echo various stereotypical views of
who the "real" Australians are. But you're not
alone in this form of thinking. This form of
thinking is very common in this country. It's
based on an ideology of national culture in
which minority cultures are regarded as alien and
a threat to social cohesion.

It consists of
pervasive cultural assumptions where the customs and
beliefs of the dominant group in society is presented
as the norm. As a result, the status and behaviour of
minority groups, particularly those who are visibly
different, is defined and judged with respect to the
dominant group of largely British and Celtic backgrounds.

These attitudes are widely discussed in the media where
they are presented as reasonable and commonsense and reflected
through media images that don't accurately portray Australia's
cultural diversity.

In this way, these ideologies are expressed and reinforced
through a process of group interaction and thereby absorbed into
popular culture.

We're living in the 21st century - and you'd think that
much would have changed over the decades. And much has.

Today, the nature of being Australian, is to be part of
the diversity of this country. It's in keeping with the
sense of potential and openess so many people enjoyed on
coming here. My family feels privileged not only to have
been able to make a home here, but also to have found our own
sense of belonging.

Henry Lawson wrote:

"Our fathers toiled for better bread
While idlers thrived beside them
But food to eat and clothes to wear
Their native land denied them.
They left their native land in spite
Of royalties' regalia,
And as they came, or if they stole
Were sent out to Australia."

All very well Lexi, but there is a choice to be made.
Some Australians have already had to migrate or live in Arabia.
The transition has started, where do you want to live ?

Bazz,

This isn't about where I want to live is it?
And don't tell me to "go back to where I came
from." I was born in Australia. People who've come
into this country over the decades have made this
country what it is. And if some choose to return
be they Arab or British, to their original birth
places - for whatever reasons, that's their choice.

What's your point?

Sorry, I did not make it clear.
People in Lakemba have had to move to another part of Sydney because
they did not want to live in Arabia.

My wife used to live there and people she knows have gone elsewhere.
In some streets in Lakemba, you would now not be able to drive home on
Fridays as the street is occupied by people praying in the middle of the road.

Bazz,

I grew up in the Western suburbs of Sydney -
actually - just outside of Parramatta.
And admittedly I haven't been back for quite
a few years. I remember all the myths that were
spread about our Maltese neighbours - which I
found out to be false, once I became friends with
Maltese girls at high school.

I'm not trying to imply that what you're saying
is not true about Lakemba - and of course if a
neighbourhood becomes unbearable, the best thing
to do is move for the sake of one's sanity. Be it
because people pray in the streets, or vomit all
over your car after a late night out or hoon up
and down your road, or threaten to call the cops
when your little brother hits a cricket ball into
their front yard and then tries to collect it.
(The Brit owner of the house scared the heck out
of my little brother by chasing him off swinging an axe).

I guess it takes all kinds - though I'm not sure why.
I guess we can only speak from our own set of values
and experiences.

Pericles said: "In doing so, you made your position - an "opponent of immigration" - crystal clear."

Questioning how much diversity Australian society can realistically expect to accommodate is not the same as being an "opponent of immigration." No where did I call for the effective and immediate end to all immigration to Australia.

"So there is no point backpeddalling, pretending that you had merely opened a debate in a spirit of purest enquiry. It simply does not wash."

Ah, so anybody who raises critical questions about diversity must be pushing a certain agenda and is not credible? In other words, critical questions about diversity are beyond the realms of discourse. How convenient.

I'm sorry that critical enquiry about the downsides of diversity doesn't "wash" with you. Then again, you are hardly a paragon of objectivity on this subject, now are you? You've made it abundantly clear on these forums that you support both high immigration and multiculturalism. Furthermore, as we have seen, you also harbor an animus against long-standing Australians which evidently affects your judgment on immigration and multicultural matters.

"I did read up on the man, by the way. My "pin-up-boy" comment was deliberate. He is being used, not only by you, but by a variety of organs slightly more open in their hostility towards immigrants."

Those "organs" - or at least the one you linked to - also seem to be heavily inspired by Darwinian concepts. Perhaps we should throw Darwin in there as another "pin-up-boy" of the anti-immigrant far-right. And basically anybody else who has worked in the fields of genetics, behavioural biology, Darwinian anthropology etc...

"In the long run, territory is crucial for survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by migrants, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction–precisely what is happening in the “multicultural” West today."

And?

Unpleasant it may be, but it's actually a fairly accurate summation of human history. Or do you disagree?

"But they stopped, didn't they. Meanwhile, out in the Pilbara..."

Really? When was that?

In any case, get back to us when you decide to explain your own bigotry against long-standing Australians.

Lexi wrote: "From your posts it seems that your notions of nationhood are incompatible with diversity."

Do yourself a favour and research the classical definition of a nation. You shall find that nations in the historic sense are based on shared ancestry, culture, language and identity, not diversity.

Anthony D. Smith, Professor Emeritus of Nationalism and Ethnicity at the London School of Economics, puts it this way:

"Nations are linked by the chains of memory, myth and symbol to that widespread and enduring type of community, the ethnie, and this is what gives them their unique character and their profound hold over the feelings and imaginations of so many people."

Lexi: "People who've come into this country over the decades have made this country what it is."

A less cohesive, less unified country than it was before they came?

Dear Drab,

The question of whether the government should attempt to
increase immigration levels remains a controversial one.
Nevertheless, people continue to come from other countries
and make Australia home, and although a high percentage of
Australians are of European descent, a direct result of
Australian immigration policies, the population is slowly
becoming more representative of the region. The numbers of
new arrivals have varied, but the cultural composition of
the country is becoming more diverse.

If you do your research you'll find that migrants found it
very difficult to adapt to a new climate, environment,
culture and (often) language. Parents who brought young
children to Australia often spoke of family conflict as the
children grew up in a culture that was in many ways opposed
to traditional values. Children talked of resenting their
parents, seeing them as representing the cultural heritage
they were keen to reject in order to fit into their new
society.

Also, many of the refugees interviewed, as well as facing
adjustment difficulties, suffered from a sense of guilt at
having left their people to continue the struggle against
repressive regimes. They had found a greater physical freedom
in Australia in that their lives were no longer in danger, but
the struggle they commenced with their conscience allowed no
spiritual freedom.

In my research, I found that people talked about the hardships
of the first five years and the nostalgia with which they
remembered the countries thay had chosen to leave.

On returning, to them for the first time, however, they were
reminded of the reasons they had left. The first trip back
was a commmon turning point, after which many people became
more content, and determined to establish their lives in
Australia.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

The longer term residents spoke of their commitment to the
country, which had developed over the years spent living
here. They had started families, bought homes, established
careers and made a place for themselves. Many people spoke
of Australia with gratitude, as they believed that migrating
had allowed them to change their lives and the lives of their
families for the better. Often the children of migrants,
who had previously denied their cultural heritage, talked of
their increasing interest in precisely those things they had
rejected, as they became more conifdent in their new society.
Being made to feel welcomed also helped.

One of the most unique and rewarding aspects of living in
Australia today (to me at least), and the nature of being
Australian - is to be part of this diversity. The wide
and varied gathering of "identities" is in keeping with the
sense of potential and openness so many people enjoyed on
coming here.

See you on another thread.