Why emphasise a distinctive national culture? That has often led to feelings of national superiority and war. National cultures arise naturally. Those within particular national boundaries have a culture in some degree different from those outside those boundaries. However, it would be fruitful to examine those elements of culture we share with people of other nations. We bond with those within our nation sometimes at the expense of bonds with those outside our nation. The last commonwealth election with Rudd and Abbott beating the drums of hate and fear against those 'horrible' boat people was an example of unifying a nation by bonding against the outsider. There is simply too much of that. We were made poorer by that appeal to hate and fear. I think it would be more reasonable to realise that many of us would also have tried to come to a better place if we had found ourselves in the conditions in which the boat people found themselves. Recognising the common humanity with those outside of Australia and the common elements of culture we share and learning about the elements of other cultures we do not share seems far more worthwhile than concerning ourselves with emphasising our national culture. We will have a national culture by virtue of the fact we are a nation. We don't need to do more in that direction.

david,
There is every need to promote our unique culture and there has been this need since our government imposed multiculturalism on us in a attempt at social engineering, in the 1970s.

Since then immigrants have been actively encouraged to maintain the cultural practices of their original nation, which has lead to the erosion of our culture and our social standards.

You will note since MC we have now instances of FGM, underage marriage, forced marriage, polygamy and even a couple of instances of honour killings. Only last week we had reports of a convicted foreign paedophile being let off because of 'cultural considerations'

We need to constantly push our laws and social standards as they are under constant threat. Note there have been calls for the introduction of Sharia law, for example.

Certainly cultures evolve naturally, but we can well do without imposed social engineering.

The illegal boat people issue is not one of culture, but an issue of securing our borders from illegal entry. These invaders have no right to gate crash our country, no matter what nationality our culture they posses. These illegals get here by bribery and deceit, and then lie to our officials. We can do without these types.

david,
I note there is another poster called Banjo Paterson.

If you have a need to abbreviate his name, could you use BP or something that does not indicate myself.

Thanks.

many of us would also have tried to come to a better place if we had found ourselves in the conditions in which the boat people found themselves
david f,
It is natural for people to seek a better life but it is unnatural to go go to where people have a better life with the intent of not accepting the rules of that society & even going there with the view of deliberately destroying the host society for nothing more than superstition.

Dear David F.,

Some Australians are suspicious of immigration and
immigrants as we can see from some of the comments
on this forum and according to opinion polling.
They have to be persuaded that Australia needs more
people and that these will no longer come from the
founding British nations.

Things are made even more difficult when the public
is receiving conflicting messages from the state as
well as from the private mass media. The media is
also manipulated by the state through "spin doctoring,"
press releases, public speeches and parliamentary
debates.
In the resulting confusion caused by the mixed messages
traditional prejudices are reasserted.

The arguments and terminology so effectively used by
One Nation were not novel but echoed those sanctified by
a century or more of Australian usage and often repeated
by influential public figures, including politicians.

Any tolerant influences can by wiped out by one headline
in a major newspaper or some well-chosen words on talk-back
radio.

For attitudes to change in the future there needs a greater
degree of consensus and bipartisanship than has been present
since the middle 1980s.

This doesn't mean repressing debate. It means a more
constructive and bipartisan approach than has been developed
thus far. After all, governments which, as in the past,
bear the responbility for immigration also bear the
responsibility for explaining and justifying the social and
economic changes which this brings.

Thank you David,

I completely agree, but even you wrote the word "we" 9 times, "our" 3 times, "ourselves" twice and "us" once.

Hopefully only a case of lapsus calami.

Nationalism is a disease.
I hope you are well.