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.

david f, you do realise all those cultures you want us to learn about, embrace, celebrate are the NATIONAL CULTURES of other lands?

So why are those national cultures deemed worthy of respect, desirable, enhancing, but our own is to be neglected, ignored, despised?

This is the core contradiction at the heart of multiculturalism.
All cultures are treasured EXCEPT our own!
Mind-boggling!

No the government doesn't need to "promote" our culture, but nor should it promote others or deliberately sabotage it through displacement by alien ones.

Dear Banjo,

I apologise for calling BP Banjo.

You wrote: “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.”

Those who came here in 1788 not only disregarded the cultural practices of the original people but imposed their superstitions upon them, drove them off their land and murdered them. What was left of the original inhabitants and their culture has been much eroded.

The descendents of the 1788 invaders continued to impose their culture on newcomers. When my wife’s mother came to Australia in 1929 from Norway the immigration officer asked for her religion. She answered “Lutheran.” The official wrote “Church of England.” In the Australia of 1929 one must be either Protestant or Catholic, and proper Protestants were Church of England.

Fortunately, the government of Australia has decided that the social engineering of imposing a monoculture is no longer a good thing in this day and age and has adopted multiculturalism which does not force immigrants to be ersatz Englishmen.

You also wrote: “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.”

These things you mentioned are crimes in Australia, and those perpetrating those crimes should be brought to account. Multiculturalism does not mean condoning criminal activity. In 1788 genocide was not a crime. Those perpetrating the crime in the early days of white settlement were not brought to justices. In some cases later perpetrators of that crime have been punished. If a crime has been excused because of 'cultural considerations’ that is very wrong.

It is not illegal to flee to another country with or without documentation. The boat people have committed no crime.

Possibly some of them have fled their countries because they wish to be in a country where FGM, underage marriage, forced marriage polygamy and honour killings are illegal.

Dear Shocker,

No one is suggesting to promote the national
cultures of other lands. That's not what
multiculturalism is. Multiculturalism means
the recognition of the diversity of cultures
that exist in our land.

It's apparent that
you want Australia to continue being defined in
narrow nationalistic and xenophobic terms.
Even with our increasingly multicultural population
you are still susceptible to assimilationist and
exclusivist notions.

With more people entering Australia for a variety of
puposes than ever before - Sadly, Australia has witnessed an
increase in hostility to immigration and
multiculturalism, with potent political force.

In the foreseeable future the population of Australia
will continue to be varied in its origins and culture.

Complaining about any aspect of these changes is futile
but will doubtlessly continue.

It's time you realised Australia will never be "white"
or "British" again, will never live in the bush, will
and will never be socially or culturally uniform.

Whatever happens, Australia will be influence by its
proximity to Asia and the islands of the Pacific.

These realities will present challenges to long-established
national myths and legends, many of which have shown
remarkable resilience.

The assumption that all Australians, or "ordinary"
Australians share the same values and attitudes was a
mainstay of conservative rhetoric for the last decades of the
twentieth century. Apart from being manifestly nonsensical,
this denied the impact of immigrants and the
continued presence of the Indigenous people.
Unless they are assumed to be fully assimilated, it is
highly improbable that people who were born and brought up
somewhere else, or who were racially segregated in remote
communities, will share all their beliefs and values with the
suburban majority of the Australian born.

Individual wrote: “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 individual,

Speaking of intent means you can read the minds of the boat people. My father entered the USA without proper documentation fleeing from czarist Russia. He loved America and fully abided by its laws and customs. Quite possibly the boat people are prepared to act the same in Australia even if they may have different superstitions from those current in Australia.

Dear Foxy,

I don’t think Australia needs more people. Considering the resources of fresh water available we are probably overpopulated already. However, the number of boat people is very small, and both Labor and the Libs are willing to exacerbate prejudice to get votes.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I also hope you are well. I will try to accept your agreement with equanimity even though I don’t always accept your disagreement with equanimity. I hope for the day when countries are merely convenient administrative units, and people feel that those outside their country’s borders are as human as those inside.

One thing unique about Australian culture is our systems of government and judicial powers. I watched QANDA last night and democracy was well expressed. It is not rule by the majority; it means equality and rule for all people. Otherwise minorities as in Egypt are suppressed and all power resides in the leader even if he has been voted in by the majority. Which is not what defines Western Democracy. We hear regularly the phrase, "A fair go for all".

Compare countries who believe in a ruling class or rule by the leader of the majority; they suppress minorities and individualism.

david f,
Of course if you want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing you can bring up arguments i.e. you father.
I am like your father, I came to Australia will good intend as did the other 99% on that plane I travelled on. As I said earlier, we're not talking about the many good migrants from years ago, we're taliking about people who come here for a political/religious agenda. Your father obviously was a decent bloke who'd probably ban the likes of the boat people from going to the US nowadays. He'd most likely support a much more refined screening process than what we have now. How many New Australians since the 50"s do you think support this influx on boats ? Do you think they want their new country to revert to what they've left behind ? I doubt it very much because I am an immigrant too who doesn't appreciate the Cavalier mentality of what some who call themselves Australian are doing to Australia.

Foxy,
Can you give me a good, scientifically backed argument as to why future immigrants should not be drawn from the U.K and Ireland as opposed to China or India?
What's the difference?
Red Herring of course, there's no argument that isn't based on perceived (now scientifically proven) racial differences, is there?
I can give you an answer to the question in two parts, which may surprise you, immigration from the "Home Isles" should be prohibited because:
1. Britons and Irish should stay in their own countries and deal with their own political/economic situation, Australia should cease to be "plan B", only when they realise that they have no way of escape will things change in their own countries.
2. After decades of Liberal Democracy (and socialism in the case of the Irish) those peoples are degraded, demoralised and no longer fit for pioneering, they bring with them the all the bad habits and neuroses of political correctness. Indians, Arabs and Chinese in fact bring to the nation the very qualities we "Racists" need to further our agenda, ethnocentrism, disdain for laws and social standards, machismo and a dog eat dog mentality.
Your racial thesis actually works better in practice for we "Racists" than hokey White supremacism or Nationalism LOL. The more social standards slip as the non White population increases the more likely views such as ours will be accepted and the faster neo Fascist and Nationalistic political tendencies will grow.

david,
What happened here in 1788is the same as happened in most other countries that were colonized or conquered by a larger or stronger people. It is irrelevant to the present situation.

The big cultural change came in the 1970s. The government imposed multiculturalism, which is an ideology that rates original culture ahead of national loyalty. It promised 'Unity in Diversity' but has failed. Instead it fosters separate groupings and seeks a federation of ethnic cultures as opposed to one cohesive nation.

The examples I gave are practice that are happening now that we turn a blind eye to because of 'cultural considerations'. Our politicians ignore them. For those, such as yourself, that argue that MC is good, it begs the question as to what other cultural practices should we admit to further foster MC. Surely the more diverse the better, if diversity is so good. I would like to see your suggestions.

You appear to confuse MC with the illegal entry of boat people.

You said, "The boat people have committed no crime". Sorry but it is against our laws for non citizens to enter Aus without a valid visa. This is the only reason we can detain them.

Dear individual,

I have no reason to think that the boat people coming here have a political/religious agenda any more than most other migrants do. I doubt very much that you're like my father. I knew him much better than you could. Although I cannot be sure of his attitudes if he were still alive, I think he would sympathise with the boat people. Immigrants with a political/religious agenda (There are some with such an agenda.) can get financing from groups who support such agendas. I think it more likely that the boat people are just desperate people fleeing oppressive governments and/or poverty and have no other other agenda than to lead a better life.

Foxy,
You said, "They have to be persuaded that Australia needs more
people and that these will no longer come from the
founding British nations"

Can you show reasons why we need more people. I take it you like long queues, long trips to and from work and continued higher house prices and covering up the small amount of good farm land that we have. Also I care not about ethnicity, but would prefer the cultures that have shown they integrate and respect our laws and society.

You also said. "No one is suggesting to promote the national
cultures of other lands. That's not what
multiculturalism is".

Sorry, but MC is about the promotion of other cultures. Both State and Fed government have spent millions doing just that. Mostly by giving grants to ethnic groups to promote their culture. Then there is the expense of providing most things in a multitude of languages when English is our national language. The whole business of MC has been a flawed and expensive experiment.

Dear Banjo,

I repeat. The boat people have done nothing illegal. I do not confuse the entry of the boat people with multiculturalism. In my original post I mentioned Labor and the Libs appeal to 'stopping the boats' as employing the politics of hate and fear. The fact is that in the current world prosperous nations are subject to immigration from those less prosperous. Many of them have different cultures that they wish to cling to in some degree. the change goes both ways. They will affect the majority culture, and the majority culture will be affected by them. I know a Palestinian family in Brisbane. The husband went off the rails by losing a lot of money gambling. In that he was behaving in a manner in which many Australians of English descent behave. They have two sons and a daughter. The daughter is living with an Australian of Irish descent. The two sons were approached by a representative of a Middle East organisation who wanted them to be involved in 'liberating' the Palestinians. They sent him on his way as they have no desire to be involved in wars in that part of the world. As far as I can see they have been changed by Australia more than they have changed Australia. I doubt that they are alone in that.

The reason that I'm suggesting a non-European component
of the population expanding is :

1) Proximity to Australia.
2) Lower living standards.
3) Authoritarian governments.
4) The collapse of civil society which encourages
emigration.

These factors are much less relevant in Europe, Britain,
or North America. Therefore while European influences
are likely to fade slowly, Asian influences are
likely to increase. This will not necessarily mean the
rapid "Asianisation" of Australia. Qualifications for
non-refugee Asians have normally been higher than for
their European predessors. Outside China, English is
spoken by the educated classes which Australia seeks to
encourage. The traditional image of Asians as poor and
inferior has little basis for those settling in Australia.

What I'm trying to say is that as long as Australia continues
to recruit immigrants and to be open to student, tourist and
short-term arrivals in large numbers, it will continue to be
multicultural and to witness large numbers of Asians in
metropolitan streets.

It cannot, therefore, enjoy the luxury of xenophobia.
Many well-educated Asians are suspicious that the White
Australia policy lingers on. To dispel this belief,
governments must consciously advocate multiculturalism and keep
multicultural policies in place.

A harmonious Australia in the future will be one in which
all Australians feel comfortable. Failure to condemn One Nation
caused a very strong reaction in the once politically dormant
Chinese community. Governments, media, and education systems
must accept a strong Asian presence, dispel popular fears
of an "Asian invasion" and redefine multiculturalism in the
sense of equal life chances and not just food and festivals.

On present indications there is no possibility that Australia
will cease to be an English-speaking, nominally Christian
country. Equally, there is no likelihood of it returning
to the allegedly homogeneous British society of fifty years ago.

Foxy,

The issue for most of us is the numbers, not whether we should have immigration at all or take any people who aren't white Europeans. Why do you want to double our population every 38 years? It ought to be obvious that we are doing serious damage to the environment even with the existing population. This is just on bird extinctions.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/australian-birds-extinction-crisis/

The Australian Conservation Foundation has nominated human population growth in Australia as a Key Threatening Process under the Environmental Protection Act.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/EPBC_nomination_22-3-10.pdf

It also ought to be obvious that our quality of life is being degraded in many ways by overcrowding. Banjo listed some of them, but you want to pretend that it is all about racism. The government can't keep up with infrastructure and public services due to the enormous rate at which people are being added, since the infrastructure is required up front, before people are able to contribute enough to pay for it.

The supposed benefits of mass migration don't stand up. It won't keep the population young. The per capita economic benefit is very small and mostly distributed to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves, so it isn't making us richer on average. See p. 6 and the following pages

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/113407/annual-report-2010-11.pdf

By redistributing wealth to the top, high population growth gives more political power to a greedy, short-sighted elite. Just look at government decisions (of both parties) on the mining tax, gambling, junk foods, etc.

I am no fan of racism, but people need waking up, not soothing. People like you actually worry me a lot more than people like Shockadelic.

Foxy,
Golden Dawn wouldn't be on the verge of taking power in Greece if the country wasn't already 30% non Greek and Anders Breivik was raised as a Liberal, if you didn't know.
You fail to understand that under the present political conditions by tolerating the bad behaviour and racially derived eccentricity of non Whites your side also give permission to Whites to behave in the same fashion.
Example. The Cronulla disturbances of 2005 began with Lebanese aggression and anti social behaviour which led to retaliation by the rest of the multicultural community and culminated in revenge raids by the original Lebanese troublemakers. The Lebanese gangs were ignored by the state and Police who were too scared to take them on because of the Lebanese community's power in the business and political spheres, their depredations were suppressed by the media and their criminal lifestyle abetted by "Anti Racists" who shielded them from criticism.
As the proportion of Whites in the population drops to around 70% in certain areas then full blown "White Flight" will begin, parts of the major cities will become "no go" zones for Whites as they have in Brussels,Stockholm, Oslo, Athens,Paris,Bradford, Madrid, Marseilles,Naples...and so on. It's in these areas which the Jihadists, the criminals, the fanatics and misogynists will flourish, the suburbs where no English is spoken, where the kids don't go to school and the adults choose crime and state welfare over gainful employment. There will be the Chinese owned convenience store on every corner, the Police speeding through the main street in armoured cars but never responding to call outs, the burnt out teachers and social workers with the thousand yard stares and drinking problems, the gun toting street kids with the hoodies and bandanas..you know it already because you've seen it on TV in city, after Multicultural rainbow city.
The scientifically measurable effects of Liberal immigration policy prove the case of Reactionaries and those opposed to Third World Immigration, if you want your grandkids to live under a Fascist dictatorship keep going as you are ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8GvLKTsTuI

david,
You can keep repeating that the boat people have done nothing illegal all you like, but that does not make it correct. The simple fact is that all non citizens require a valid visa to enter Aus. That is our law and because they break that law we lock them up. We do not lock up people who arrive with a valid visa. You will find it on the DIAC website, if you care to look.

It was a major issue at the last election, after Labor rescinded the system that had worked previously. Labor always promised they would stop the boats coming but obviously did not intend to. LNP promised to stop the boats and thus far it appears to be working. The electors are/were sick of the invaders breeching our borders and voted accordingly. Neither political party 'employed the politics of hate and fear' as you put it. Most criticism was aimed at the smugglers.

The simple fact is most Aussies know we were being conned and taken for a ride by the illegals and it was costing us a fortune. The illegals are not genuine asylum seekers.

I suggest you get used to the fact that the illegals will be deterred from attempting to come to Aus by boat. They will not get what they seek.

Now if you want to talk about issues of culture and what is good for us and what is detrimental to a cohesive society, I look forward to that. No suggestions yet about more alien practices to enrich our diversity?

Gentlemen,

I think that most of you would agree that Australia
needs a continuing and planner immigration program
into the future. Where we may differ is that I see
the sources from which immgrants are drawn make a
multicultural approach to policy essential, and that
policy should be shaped in the knowledge that human
beings are involved. I accept that politicians must
work within limits set by public opinion. However,
I don't accept that the majority opinion is always
right. Changing public opinion is a necessary feature
of democracy and in this area is often essential.

See you on another discussion - I have nothing further
constructive to add to this one.

Cheers.

I have no reason to think that the boat people coming here have a political/religious agenda
david f,
Well, I can't force you to get some foresight & I only hope that those of us who do will get to watch those who refuse to see, see what's coming to them head-on. The reality however is that they're already dragging us all down.

I have to disagree with all of you. Those who have a political/religious agenda would pick a more secure way of getting to Australia than the dicey way of getting involved with a people smuggler. Some atrocities in the US have been caused by people who came to the US on legitimate visas. Examples are 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing. The second biggest atrocity in terms of lives lost, the bombing of the Murtagh building in Oklahoma, was by Timothy MacVeigh, an native born American who had fought in Iraq. It is easier to target the boat people than to confront the danger from documented aliens and twisted native-born people. It might be safer simply to let all the boat people in and nobody else.

However, Australia has less than 3% of the fresh water that the US has, and more than 3% of the US population within a similarly sized area. Considering the basic resource of available water that means that Australia is more heavily populated than the US. Not only is the supply of water limited but fracking may destroy much of what is available. I disagree with you, Foxy, about any need for more people in Australia.

Dear David,

<<I have to disagree with all of you.>>

I wonder where's the need to disagree with me, but so far you haven't.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I'm sorry. I was just being disagreeable. On this thread we appear to be in agreement.

Dear David,

Many people don't agree with an increase in population growth
for a variety of reasons.
However most politicians seem to agree at least
that there should be a sustainable population policy.
Both government and professional demographic projections agree that
a population of about 25 million within thirty years is the
most likely and desirable outcome. Whether that level would then
be maintained or would start to decline would depend on whether
a continuing net immigrant intake of about 80,000 should be
sustained, together with "family friendly" policies designed to
encourage a higher birthrate.

We have to wait and see what sort of policies our governments
come up for the future. I don't thin that zero population
growth is a realistic option with out aging population.

In multicultural, anti-anything homegrown Australia, David's article might have more appropriately been titled:

We don't need to EUTHANIZE our national culture

david,
It appears we agree on one thing, about immigration and population.

The only reason both major parties want high immigration is because big business want it and make big donations to both parties. This is because more people means more demand for consumer goods, they care not about quality of life.

Bit surprized that foxy supports the high immigration/population idea. Foxy usually goes along with the green line which does not encourage high immigration.

We cannot solve the world population dilemma by immigration. Government sponsored family planning is required, especially in the countries subject to famine. Thailand and Iran have shown that government sponsored family planning works.

We disagree on multiculturalism. It is one thing to recognize different cultures but it is quite another to continue to allow immigration of those groups that will not/cannot integrate and hold our society in contempt. Most immigrants do integrate and it is only a few that cause a lack of cohesion and social problems. My belief is that most Muslims see themselves as pioneers for Islam, or they would not come to and live in places governed by infidels.

You may recall that the Howard government stopped using the MC word and the last Labor government did nothing to restore MC. Therefore I have high hopes that MC will finally be officially discarded in the near future. A costly and failed ideology.

Dear Banjo,

Many on the left and many on the right push for population growth. No species can increase indefinitely, and we are no exception. At some point there comes a crash. In recorded human history there has been three such crashes. However, population climbs again to higher levels. By keeping its numbers down Australia may avoid the next crash. Generally crashes occur due to war, disease and famine. If we don't keep our numbers down by rational means it will be done by the traditional means.

Italy and Ireland have a decreasing population. It can be done. However, Australia will probably follow lemming logic.

Foxy,

You really need to do the math. Our population is currently growing at 1.8% per year according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and is currently about 23 million. A little work with a calculator will show that if growth continues at this rate, the population in 30 years will be 39.5 million, not 25 million. Stabilising at 25 million would be hard, even with zero net immigration. Currently 60% of our population growth is from immigration. The rest is natural increase, about a third of which is due to births to migrants. Eventually the demographic momentum will run out, and natural increase (at least for the native born population) will stop, but not until some time in the 2030s.

So far as aging is concerned, Australia is just changing to a stable age structure, where all the generations will be of approximately equal size until you get to extreme old age. If the Baby Boomers are those born from 1945-1964, and Generation X are those born from 1965-1984, then there are 10% more people in Generation X. The next generation is bigger yet. There just isn't an enormous overhang of Baby Boomers. Unless you want to kill people off when they get too old, every country is just going to have to learn to live with an older age structure.

Let's consider David f's figures on the water. If outcomes in the nastier range of the scientists' predictions come to pass, we could get drier yet. Responsible rulers will maintain decent safety margins for their people. We don't have them.

By the way, I am a woman

Divergence,
Found your info very interesting. Have you looked at the government sponsored family planning programs in Thailand and Iran? They dropped the birth rate from about 6 per woman to less than 2. It may also be useful to compare Thailand's economy with that of the Phillipines, which does not have government sponsored family planning.

If you have any further info on the adverse effects of high population or immigration rates I would like to see that. As a former farmer, I nearly cry when I see good land covered by concrete, bitumen and houses. Lots of people do not realize that the pioneers established towns on good land with water available.

How stupid for Brisbane council to allow housing subdivision below the 1974 flood level. That caused flooding to about 50% of the houses.

Dear Divergence,

Maths has never been my strong suit due to
being bullied at school by my mathematics mistress.
Thank you for the points you've made and the civil
way in which you made them.
BTW: I'm a woman too.

Dear Divergence,

I will re-state what I've made clear from the beginning:

While there are several ways of discussing immigration
I don't believe that immigration can be discussed without
understanding the political context. Policy may be made by
rational bureaucrats, but it's invariably developed within
a political process and against a background of public
opinion. While it is an aspiration of Australian policy
makers to be rational and detached, the reality is rather
different.

I'll say it again - that I believe that Australia needs a
continuing and planned immigration program into the
future and that the sources from which immigrants are drawn
make a multicultural approach to policy essential
and that policy should be shaped in the knowledge that
human beings are involved and not just factors of production.
I full accept that politicians must work within the
limits set by public opinion.

However as I've stated previously - I do not accept that
the majority opinion is always right.

Changing public opinion is a necessary feature of democracy and
in this area, often essential.

See you on another discussion.

See you on another discussion.
Foxy,
You seem to give those running shoes a fair workout lately.

Foxy,

It is a bit difficult to change public opinion when your opponents control the media and the education system, as well as being adept at manufacturing consent. From the reaction to Rudd's Big Australia, it is pretty clear that large numbers of people are unhappy about what is happening.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/big-australia-vision-goes-down-like-a-lead-balloon-20100803-115g7.html

Note that nearly half of non-English speaking migrants didn't like Big Australia either. As an Iranian scientist recently put it to me, "A lot of us come from countries that are overpopulated. Why would we want to duplicate the overpopulation in Australia?"

The problem is that the high population growth via mass migration is a second or third order issue for most people. They don't like it, but they haven't connected the dots between the population growth and the economic and quality of life issues that concern them most.

Banjo,

You have put up some good links over the years. Thailand vs. the Philippines is a real eye opener. Here in Australia, the Stop Population Growth Now party in South Australia has some good stuff on their websites, as do the publications (all online) of Sustainable Population Australia. Overseas there is Population Matters in the UK and Negative Population Growth in the US. You might also like this article by the economist Leith van Onselen

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/04/no-alan-population-growth-is-not-an-economic-boom/

and

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/05/highrise-harry-wants-more-people/

david f "Those who came here in 1788 not only disregarded the cultural practices of the original people"

And that was wrong, right?
So why repeat that crime?

"and people feel that those outside their country’s borders are as human as those inside."

And they can stay outside.

Foxy "No one is suggesting to promote the national cultures of other lands. That's not what multiculturalism is. Multiculturalism means the recognition of the diversity of cultures that exist in our land."

You just changed "promotion" to "recognition". Same thing.

Oh, the government paying millions to ethnic community groups is only "recognising" them, not promoting them.

"you are still susceptible to assimilationist and exclusivist notions."

And all those ethnic communities aren't?

Can you be part of the "Indian" or "Vietnamese" communities in Sydney, if your ancestry is Swedish, Zulu or Mexican?

No, you will be EXCLUDED (the potential to "assimilate" isn't even available).

"Complaining about any aspect of these changes is futile"

Nothing is futile because nothing (political/social) is inevitable.

"Australia will never be "white" or "British" again"

Again? It still is White!
92% have European ancestry.

"will never live in the bush"

A third still do.

"never be socially or culturally uniform."

Never was.

Western civilisation has been *internally* eclectic for quite some time, even without any foreign influences.

"Proximity to Australia."

Should we introduce their flora and fauna too?
Isn't all that Australasian wildlife just a bit too limited?
Tigers, we need tigers.

"Lower living standards"

And why is that? Who is making that environment? *They* are!

We already have plenty of Australians living in poverty (700,000 unemployed, 100,000 homeless).

And what of Eastern Europeans and White Latin Americans? Can't we give them a "better life"?

"student, tourist and short-term arrivals... witness large numbers of Asians in metropolitan streets."

Temporary and permanent are two very different things.

david f "Those who came here in 1788 not only disregarded the cultural practices of the original people"

That is very likely. Aborigines were parochial, misogynist and violent and did not welcome the Irish and other unfortunates who were in fact refugees from a society where they were failing to thrive, savagely discriminated against and ejected from their country and could have faced the gallows if they protested.

"Those who came here in 1788 not only disregarded the cultural practices of the original people"
That's about as stupid as an argument can get. Those poor b....ds came from a living hell & some moron 300 years on living a totally supported life eventuated & made possible from the sufferings of those first colonists says something like that ? Give us a break !
Those Aborigines were wilder than the rest of the fauna, there was no way for any newcomer to know a proper way of conduct if the indigenous themselves didn't even know. To them the bloke from around the next corner was as much of an invader as those from the other side of the world.

Divergence,
Thanks for the links.

Look forward to seeing more of your postings.

Dear Divergence,

Before I leave this discussion here's another link
that may be of interest:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/squeeze-is-on-as-australias-populations-boom-20131126-2y83k.html

Foxy "Squeeze is on as Australia's populations boom"

Which side are you on?

"Migration would become the driving source of Australia's growth."

It's not already?

"The bureau's central projection assumes a long-run average net gain of 240,000 migrants a year, roughly current levels."

The bureau also assumes native Australians will sit silently and idly by while other people displace them.

The bureau assumes there won't be a civil war, putting an end to non-European immigration forever.

The bureau assumes there won't be an influenza epidemic that kills a third of the population.

The bureau assumes there won't be a severe economic collapse, making demands for more "workers" utterly redundant.

The bureau can get to hell.

Shockadelic,
70% mate, that's the magic number. When the non White population in a city or suburb rises to over 30% that's when things start to go the way of Detroit, the Whites leave en masse and the non Whites split into enclaves. As the Monash Uni study released a week or so ago showed us, in multi racial societies trust breaks down between ethnic groups as well as WITHIN ethnic groups, though this type of information was already available via studies from the U.S and U.K.
Let's face it, we know what's going to happen in the U.S in the coming decades because it's already begun and even at it's present low level the race war is a gruesome enough spectacle. FYI "Teen" is the PC term for Black youth used by the U.S media:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzoZMBgwRpc
Foxy & Co don't listen to these Youtube channels, they don't listen to non White people at all because they're White supremacists.

Dear Shocker,

I didn't realise that we were in some sort of "battle"
here in this discussion and that we're supposed to be
taking "sides."

I was simply giving information put out by the Australian
Bureau of Statistics. So if you disagree with their stats -
I can only assume that you're privy to information that
the Bureau isn't. (hyperbole - doesn't count).

How about you providing us with some substance instead
of continually sniping about "whites," versus the rest of
Australia. I doubt whether today you'll garner much support
for your ideas - except of course from the lunatic fringe
on forums such as this - which actually doesn't count for
very much in the general scheme of things.

cont'd ...

As for the Bureau going to hell?

Nah, that's not a very realistic view on your part
to take. How else will you get know the percentage of
"whites" that actually make up the population of
this country or anything else about our country's
population if it weren't for the Bureau's work -
including the Census stats?

Think before you post.

Foxy "Think before you post."

I always do.
My stats are also from the government, Dept of Immigration.
Of course, neither they nor the Bureau bother documenting how many Whites there are.
You have to estimate based on other criteria.

Yes, there is a battle.
As exemplified by this ridiculous article, lamenting that Australians may actually want their own culture, not 6000 alien ones.

And this battle of words will become a literal war one day, if our government doesn't start being more sensible.

I bet that most Australians care about whether Whites survive, they just won't say so when the pollsters ask (if they even ever ask that particular question).

When they realise they are being bulldozed out of existence, not merely supplemented by a little "spice", they'll be a lot more overt.

Australians don't hate "others", but they're also not going to passively allow their own extinction.
Crunch time's coming.

(if they even ever ask that particular question).
Shockadelic,
You're right on that one. I always cringe with dismay when they ask this or that moron academic about what's best for the country. Those TV shows with their selected audiences of absolutely non-everyday, average people like on the show hosted by Tony Jones.
As you said they never ask real/relevant questions that go to the core of everyday life situations. What would some ignorant academic know about how normal people feel about the incompetence & lack of incompetence of bureaucrats, lawyers, magistrates etc. These morons are so ignorant they don't even realise they are the cause of many of the problems normal people get caught up in.

lack of incompetence of bureaucrats,

oops, that should read lack of integrity of bureaucrats

Dear Shocker,

Could you please tell us what is the "traditional
Australian identity."
Kindly define it.

Please put into words what the "Australian way of life
is?"

Thank You.

Please put into words what the "Australian way of life is?"
Foxy,
I don't think anyone of any nationality is able to answer in the way you're asking. There are some things & that includes culture that fall into the category of "that goes without saying".
To me as a migrant the Australian way of life in the true sense of the word is when people feel patriotic about Australia, feel protective towards each other, don't rip each other off etc. i.e. all the values that are no longer present due to the tragic failure of the knee jerk reaction that we have been forced to accept as multiculturalism.

Dear individual,

You wrote: "To me as a migrant the Australian way of life in the true sense of the word is when people feel patriotic about Australia, feel protective towards each other, don't rip each other off etc."

The other day I came out of the RR station, and it was raining. A young man who looked Chinese to me offered to share his umbrella with me. it was a protective act toward an old man who obviously did not share his ethnicity.

There really is no evidence that Australians are less likely to rip people off than people of other cultures. Christopher Skase was very good at that, and he was not alone among 'regular' Aussies.

I am also a migrant, and I still care for my native land, the USA. I support Australia and the USA when I think they are right and oppose them when I think they are wrong. I think that is the way for a citizen to behave.

I don't believe Australians are any more virtuous than people of other cultures.

I don't believe Australians are any more virtuous than people of other cultures.
david f,
I didn't say they were, on the contrary. Also, the Chinese are the most successful of non-anglo saxon immigrants. I have had little favours done by people who dislike my race but not me. Individually many people of all races are as good or bad as any. There's only one lot who don't want to fit in & they're not even a race as such & they're the ones most sane people who care about the future of society are concerned about.

davidf, "I don't believe Australians are any more virtuous than people of other cultures"

You likely wouldn't, however this hasn't happened in Australia,

-Rwanda genocide,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3DrvrrSgHI

nor this,
-Girl 'is stoned to death by Syrian fundamentalists for having a FACEBOOK account'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562051/Girl-stoned-death-Syrian-fundamentalists-having-FACEBOOK-account.html

Australians abhor ritual slaughter too.

Want more examples? There are plenty.

Foxy, I don't believe I've ever referred to a "traditional Australian identity." or **the* Australian way of life", so I don't see why I should have to define those terms.

You must have me confused with someone else.
I am probably the most unconventional, eclectic person I've ever met.

I've referred to the fact that Australians (the ethnic group) are:

(1) White/European in ancestry.

(2) part of the Anglosphere.

(3) related to other Europeans, culturally and genetically, going back 6000 years.

(4) that European civilisation has an *eclectic*, dynamic cultural history, not a uniform or static one.

(5) that for two centuries, immigration here was restricted to Europeans almost exclusively. Our national foundation, our core is therefore irrevocably European (not global) and should be respected as such.

(6) that if indeed we need immigrants at all (I doubt it), we can select White people who want a "better life" (Eastern Europeans, White Latin Americans, the millions of Europeans left stranded as resented minorities in former colonies).

(7) that we already have plenty of impoverished people here who need help first (700,000 unemployed, 100,000 homeless).

(8) that non-European peoples and cultures are not related to us (with the exception of Indic/Iranian, but that connection was severed 6000 years ago).

(9) that exotic elements can be adopted or consumed without immigration (e.g. music, films, posters, etc can all be purchased online). We adopted surfing (Hawaiian origin) and jazz (Black American) during the White Australia era!

(10) that the sudden and massive (80% of immigrants non-Euro) introduction of people from 6000 cultures is a dangerous, irresponsible and disrespectful (to us) experiment.

(11) that if Australians wanted such diversity (Ask us!), it should be done incrementally and on a small scale, gradually expanding the range over *centuries*.

(12) that history's prior experiments with mixing different peoples together has generally produced deadly failures and our experiment will follow the same downward descent.

If you wish for me to elaborate on anything I've actually said, I will.

To the original topic:

Dear David f,
>Why emphasise a distinctive national culture? That has often led to feelings of national superiority and war.<

I don't think there is any widespread feeling of 'superiority', national/nationalistic or otherwise, held by the majority of Australians - nor any real possibility of such a delusional notion overtaking them any time soon. A feeling of thankfulness perhaps, for living in the luckiest country in the world, a sense of pride, and a sense that what we/they have is worth preserving.
And I think that this care and concern for the preservation of 'what we/they have' (here in Oz) is very much shared by the great majority of our immigrants, past and present, once they get to know 'us'.
How many new immigrant arrivals (other than detainees, that is) would turn around and say "This is not what I was expecting; I want to go home"?
How many ex-detainees when released into community and given support to become acclimatised (whether given a visa or not) would be horribly disappointed (or would be fearful when they walk down the street or catch a bus)?

I am reasonably confident that the great majority of new immigrants like what they find, once they cross the language and cultural barriers, and wouldn't want it, our culture and 'identity' changed any more than the majority of 'Aussies' would.
As for war, we always seem to be fighting other people's, in the cause of peace, harmony and democracy.

Jay,

'Knockout', the New Jersey, USA, 'One hitter quitter' game, shown on your YouTube link from Thursday 3 April, is a real eye-opener, giving some insight into the potentials of a 'fragmented' society - something to be avoided/averted/obviated at all cost.
(Could this 'game' possibly be the origin of some similar 'antics' by some Oz youth {of unidentified ethnicity/nationality/culture} at Sydney's Kings Cross and elsewhere?)
The thought of Oz youth (immigrant or otherwise) emulating the worst of overseas example is indeed worrying, and a cause for reviewing the direction of parts of our national 'culture'.
(Assimilation gone wrong; or disenfranchised/alienated youth run amok?)

Dear onthebeach,

When the settlers came to Australia they completely disregarded any rights that the Aborigines had to their land. They slaughtered possibly 20,000 of them. They acted pretty much like other Europeans did to any other tribal people.

Australia is very good at keeping news of its misdeeds quiet. Australia has been condemned by the UN for its blockade around Bougainville during Bougainville's war with PNG. The issue in the war was the Panguna mine and the profits derived from it by an Australian corporation. An estimated 20,000 died because the Australian blockade contrary to international law did not allow even medicines to get through.

While other societies have committed their crimes due to religious craziness and overcrowding Australia has committed its crimes for land and greed. The Aborigines and the Bougainvilleans are as dead as if they had been killed for other reasons.

I don't believe Australians are any more virtuous than people of other cultures.

david f, "When the settlers came to Australia they completely disregarded any rights that the Aborigines had to their land. They slaughtered possibly 20,000 of them. They acted pretty much like other Europeans did to any other tribal people"

If you are interested in facts you might search for comments by joe 'Loudmouth' on that very subject. His research failed to find evidence to support your allegation and in fact, as opposed to your black armband factoids, found evidence that authorities cared for Aborigines. Have you come across loudmouth's posts?

completely disregarded any rights that the Aborigines had
onthebeach,
Yes, there are always people who disregard others' rights. There were also a lot of indigenous who acted that way. There were also even many more who have done more for the indigenous that the indigenous themselves could have possibly done. That by the way is happening right now under your nose if you care to look & have the integrity to acknowledge.

Dear onthebeach,

The record of massacres and giving station owners freehold title to land disregarding the fact that others were living on the land exists. You like many other Australians, can ignore it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians contains a list of some of the massacres and a discussion of the secrecy surrounding them.

Certainly not all Australians participated, and some tried to protect the Aborigines. The authorities have a mixed record. However, the record is mostly bleak.

Great crimes are often accompanied by great denials. You will believe what you want to believe. It is quite common for people who belong to a nation, a religion or other group to think they are in some way better than those who don't belong to their group. It is common for tribal people to call themselves by a name meaning 'the people'. The clear implication is that those who do not belong to the group are something other than the people. Nations are in some respects a tribal group. Calling a recounting of the crimes 'a black armband view of history' is a form of denial.

david f,
Have you ever read about the stories & legends of pre-invasion ? Most are about some killing.

Dear davidf,

Thank you for the topic.

In my youth nationalism wasn't a big thing at all, in fact we tended to look down on the Yanks and their gushing patriotism, but I'm not really sure what changed. Is it just purely the weight of the American Culture? A reaction by some disaffected sections to multi-culturalism? A greater investment in sporting success? A more expansive sense of our place in the global community? Or could it just be the by-product of a young nation growing older?

I have a lot of misgivings about overt nationalistic behaviour but I do see benefits flowing from when we decide to measure against other countries. For instance our fall in international education standards was a driver, one almost neutered by this government for some real reforms in the way we fund our schools.

But it is a fine line. Just the right amount and we are embarrassed for our country when it gets named for human rights abuses by the UN. Too much and we feel we can disregard the criticism because 'we are right and always will be'.

@ david f, Sunday, 6 April 2014 7:24:53 PM

Wikipedia is full of factoids and speculation. You shouldn't rely on that as your source.

But why do that anyway when Loudmouth (Joe) a researcher who posts on this site has examined original government records and posted his findings on here. You must have seen his posts, or are you saying you haven't? Because I would be interested in what facts you can provide that challenge his conclusions.

SteelRedux, "In my youth nationalism wasn't a big thing at all, in fact we tended to look down on the Yanks and their gushing patriotism"

Where and when were you born?

You couldn't have been living in Australia or the West around or after WW2. Australia lost many lives in WW1, then was the Great Depression and WW2, another large loss of lives. Yet you say of yourself and the community around you, "In my youth nationalism wasn't a big thing at all". Say what? Was there an Australian family who didn't lose someone close in WW2?

You continue, "..in fact we tended to look down on the Yanks". Ever heard of the battle of the Coral Sea? Australians were and remain very thankful for the sacrifice of the thousands of young Americans in the Pacific theatre of WW2.

Dear onthebeach,

If you want to believe that all the stories of massacres of Aborigines were made up you will believe that. If you want to believe their land wasn't taken from them you will also believe that. I am tired of this interchange.

david f,
The Australian Aborigine just like Islanders were a just as warring people as all others including the anglo-saxon. When the first anglo-saxon settlers arrived here there were massive areas which were so sparsely populated that the settlers saw it as acceptable to make a living on that land. The Aborigines weren't backwards when it came to defending or attacking they simply weren't advanced enough to get the upper hand. That is the nature of survival. Like it or not there's nothing we can now say or do to change that. The settlers have since poured unimaginable amounts of resources & good will into improving the lives of the indigenous. Many who have a degree of indigenous in them are taken full advantange of this. Those who are still trying to get to grips with the past 200 years will simply keep on waiting for something that's not there. No matter how much of a victim one can be it still does not excuse doing nothing to try to better one's lot even though some call it culture.

david,
Yes, thanks for the thread. It has given others, such as myself, the opportunity to highlight the failings of the multicultural ideology.

For those that support the flawed MC policies, they should remind themselves that it is not all beer festivals, dragon parades and new culinary experiences. There are many alien cultural practices that are detrimental to our society.

It appears that the supporters of MC accept the adverse practices as simply the price we have to pay so they can obtain a choice of eating places, which is the only practical outcome of MC. No one has yet shown any other practical advantage for the millions wasted over the years. They simply persist in abstract slogans like 'diversity' and 'our lives enriched' without demonstrating how.

For myself and an increasing number of others, the price is too high for the little gained and the sooner MC is disbanded completely the better off we will all be.

Dear David F.,

Again Thank You for this discussion.

My parents set a precedent that has had much to do
with some of the paths I've taken. They showed me that
it is possible for people to change their lives and
venture into the unknown. Being a part of a minority
in this country - a culture within another culture was
an experience that challenged and I will always be grateful
to my parents for the role model they provided.

The following link may be of some interest to those
who still question the validity of the nature of
our Australian society and who see nothing but problems
and want "multiculturalism" disbanded:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4278128.html

What a shock, Foxy doesn't respond to a single element of my meticulous explanation of what I actually think/believe.

Let me guess, you didn't even read it.
And will continue to react to me as someone I'm not.
Your invented boogeyman.

This is why you cannot win, Foxy.
(a) You can't even recognise you are in a battle/war.
(b) You fail to adequately defend your side.
(c) You fail to effectively attack your opponents.

Warriors who can't effectively defend or attack, and don't even realise they're at war are an army doomed to defeat.

Saltpetre "How many new immigrant arrivals would turn around and say "This is not what I was expecting; I want to go home"?

A quarter of them.

david f "When the settlers came to Australia they completely disregarded any rights that the Aborigines had to their land."

Then please blame the appropriate people, the British, not "Australia" or "Australians", which didn't exist at the time.

"It is common for tribal people to call themselves by a name meaning 'the people'. The clear implication is that those who do not belong to the group are something other than the people"

Other than "their" people.
Every tribe so-named is well aware of neighbouring tribes and what their names mean too.

If the thousands of distinct "peoples" in the world did not exclude "others", none of them would exist.
There'd be no "multi" without first having many "monos".

SteeleRedux "In my youth nationalism wasn't a big thing at all,... but I'm not really sure what changed"

The people did.

Up until the 1960s, there was no question of what "Australians" were.
Now every second person you see in Sydney or Melbourne looks nothing like "Australians" did in your youth.

Today's youth are growing up with that transformation and a simultaneous *awareness* that it wasn't always like this.

They are feeling "nostalgia" for an "Australia" they've been deprived of.
An Australia they might actually feel they could *belong* in, that represented their particular people's nature/character.

The link Foxey posted is typical of those supporting MC. I contains no hard or practical benefits to our community, in fact it acknowledges that we have become far less patriotic. This is clearly evident when the national anthem is played at major sporting events.

About 95% of the comments were against MC, si I will simply post the first as an indication of the rest.

Old Crispy Dog :

26 Sep 2012 8:53:05am

'Multiculturalism' is the self-righteous, arrogant term that means, 'We have no intention of fitting in/intergrating, and we'll do and say whatever we bloody well like...and there's not a thing you can do about it. (If you do we'll just cry "racism" that'll shut you up). And by the way we're very short on cash for our new radio station and our 'ethnic' community centre and our 'ethnic' school and why haven't we been given extra cash for our 'ethnic' swimming pool? It's very insulting to us that you show such disrespect to our way of life. It's very discrimanatory. We'll make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissioner'.

If all this stuff isn't calculated discrimination in reverse; I'll go he.
It's the very reason the various 'ethnic' countries they come from are either blatantly fascist or in utter turmoil.
And now we are being infected with the same social disease.

Dear Foxy,

>>My parents set a precedent<<

Unless I mistake you for somebody else, your parents came from Lithuania. I think one has to distinguish between multiethnicity - that has characterised the West built on a common culture with more or less “Judaeo-Christian” foundations - and multiculturalism, although multiculturalism as a new ideology on the North American continent was an unintended outcome of Michel Novak’s pioneering book “The rise of the unmeltable ethnics: the new political force of the seventies” (Macmillan 1972).

Dear OTB,

I was born under the shadow of the Sydney Harbour Bridge while my father was stationed there doing his clearance diver training. He had returned from service in the Malayan Emergency and the Korean War.

He too didn't think much of the Yankee propensity for overt nationalism so perhaps I can attribute that part of my sensibilities on my upbringing, though I can vividly recall all his mates expressing similar views. That being said they were a bunch of hard nuts.

Earlier this year I had an exchange with a 97 year old digger who had fought in New Guinea during WW2. I put to him;

“In one of your replies you said your hope for the future was "I hope that all wars are finished. I hope they realise that no one gains from war". I was reading about the Aitape-Wewak campaign in which you fought, with real guts I might add, on the Australia War Memorial website. It states that it was "one of several of those fought in 1945 that has been subsequently branded an "unnecessary campaign".

I am keen to hear what your thoughts were and of those around you toward the job you were tasked with. Was there resentment or a sense of let's get the bloody thing done and get home?

Finally I would like to hear your attitude to the last series of wars Australia has gotten itself involved in in the Middle East. Do they qualify as 'necessary campaigns' in your mind? I ask because those I have met from your generation seem to have a different take on war than the current one. What guidance would you give them about war?

Kind regards mate and thank you again.”

Cont...

Cont...

This was his reply;

“When the Japanese bombed Darwin, we felt that was it, they're coming down here and we need to clean them out of New Guinea and stop them. That was 1942. They'd already taken Singapore and places like that and they hadn't been beaten in battle. Nobody knew that the bomb would be built or work or how it would play out. We just wanted to get the job done and finish the war later on and were glad when it did finish. We found invasion money on them over there - if things had gone better for them in New Guinea, who knows. Now I would prefer that we stay away from wars, they are no good.”

I have a very real sense my father and Norm would have gotten on famously, I am almost as positive neither would have thought much of you. If you want to claim having lost family members in a war forces a universal American style nationalism on all and sundry then perhaps you need to immigrate mate because this is not what those men would have believed nor is it what I believe.

I invite you to re-read your post and contemplate what a simpering, mealy mouthed, effort it was.

“Where and when were you born?” Really? Nick off.

SteelRedux,

You said that in your youth, nationalism wasn't a big thing at all.

Your meandering reply was a self indulgence that did not address the reasonable question to you. I repeat, it is very hard to imagine anyone who was around at that time in Australia, who wouldn't have felt some loyalty and pride in his country and its defence forces, a sense of nationalism.

Yet you maintain that you didn't.

You went on to bag the US, however many Australians post-WW2 and now are very thankful for the sacrifice of the thousands of young Americans who fought in the Pacific theatre.

Perhaps it is your hatred of the US that is clouding your judgement.

Dear George,

Yes, you're correct my ancestry is Lithuanian.
I was born in Australia.
International research has shown that some measure
of assimilation is inevitable for any ethnic
community. Even seemingly airtight and isolated
groups like Hasidic Jews, cannot totally escape a slight
touch of assimilation. Furthermore, assimilation is a
two-way process. As an immigrant absorbs the culture
of his host country, he is also giving off and
surrendering some of his own imported heritage.

As a result, an immgrant living in Australia for a long
time is likely to gradually create a new identity,
although he may not be aware of it. What the former immigrant
still believes to be his Lithuanian, Greek, Vietnamese,
Hungarian, Chinese, or British identity may well be
regarded as totally Australian by the contemporary residents
of those countries.

Apart from food, many Australians seem to know very little
about non-British migrants or their cultures.
An attempt to preserve migrant cultures in Australia was
initiated several decades ago, on 30 May 1978, when the
"Report of the Review of Post-Arrival Programs and Services
to Migrants" was tabled in the Federal House of Representatives.
Commonly known as the Galbally Report, the document
recommended, inter alia, "that if our society develops
multiculturalism through the broad concept of community
education, it will gain much which has been lost to other
nations."

This recommendation was based on the observation that
"already our nation has been enriched by the artistic,
intellectual, and other attributes of migrant cultures."

Dear Shocker,

I don't see you as a "bogeyman" at all.
You simply don't say anything new. Your attitude
is something we've all grown up with in this country.
Luckily, your outdmoded attitude is no longer
acceptable to most thinking peole - and it will
eventually die out

Dear Foxy,

I agree with much of what you wrote but I still think that one should distinguish between multiethnicity with multiculturalism.

Yes, the Galbally Report spoke of multiculturalism - after all, 1978 was six years after the appearance of the “unmeltable ethnics” book - but as I understood it (and I think at that time so did most Australians) it expressed support for a variety of ethnicities, ethnic identities, within one political AND cultural Australian identity.

I cannot speak for the problems (and perceptions) of multiculturalism in Austraia today, since I have lived in Germany for the last 15 years. And here, Polish, Italian etc immigrants “melt” (assimilate) - i.e. mingle with the general population with no a priori preference for their own ethnicity - in the second and certainly the third generation. With Turkish immigrants that is not the case: they make contacts, of course, but often their different ethnic - actually cultural, based on a different religion, whether or not confessed - origins often remains visible into the third generation.

In Britain, France etc there is a similar difference between immigrant European ethnicities and those of non-European cultures.

Of course, visible cultural differences do not have to imply problems but unfortunately they often do. In my opinion, the multicultural nature of most countries is a (future) fact, that cannot be avoided, only the problems made explicit and attended to.

George,
I agree about the difference between multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism.

We have been multi racial since 1788 but not multicultural.

The ideology of MC was imposed in the 70s and is a misnomer as we only accept some cultural practices from some cultures. Basicly, only those that fit our existing culture. There are many alien cultural practices that are not acceptable to our society. There is not one foreign culture that we accept in its entirety.

By the way, there are a few alien cultural practices that our politicians turn a blind eye to.

We can let our culture evolve and can well do without government imposed social engineering.

However the foundations of our society is the Westminster system and that remains so. It is in our interests to endeavour to retain our unique culture.

Shockadelic,
A few things to note from Foxy's last post.

"An attempt to preserve migrant cultures in Australia was
initiated several decades ago"
This is an admission that the purpose of MC was to foster other cultures, although she has previously maintained this was not so.

This financial year we are spending $41 million on federal grants to migrant communities. How much since 1970?

Foxy quote, This recommendation was based on the observation that
"already our nation has been enriched by the artistic,
intellectual, and other attributes of migrant cultures."
You will note the continued use of the word 'enriched' without saying how. 'Diversity' is another word commonly used but again nothing about how we benefit.

There has not been one practical advantage put forward as to how Aus benefits from MC. It is only the migrants themselves that benefit, to the detriment of Australians and our culture.

There are many, like me, who are sick of our funds being spent to foster the maintainance of alien cultures and the continued erosion of our own.

Dear George,

Up until the early 1970s, assimilation and the
preservation of "White Australia" continued as the
Australian Government's official policies. Migrants
of every ethnic origin were expected to assimilate
promptly into a monocultural mould of Australian
identity, based on the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic
culture.

The ideal immigrant was the one who assimilated easily,
one who "became more similar to the host population
as a result of social interaction and through the
shedding of attributes of their culture."

In the meantime, the postwar diversification in
Australian immigrants' backgrounds continued, and
multiculturalism was becoming more and more evident in
all walks of life. The new face of Australia was
in existence long before the politicans and civil
leaders were prepared to admit it.

The very presence of foreign languages and foreign
language press in Australia mirrored the nation's
growing cultural diversity.

Several other factors combined to erode, and finally
eliminate in 1966, the White Australia and Government-
promoted assimilation policies.

The contributing factors included generally changing
social attitudes, war service, travel, foreign students
in Australia, et cetera. The revised immigration
policies allowed new people to come and settle in
Australia, people from a wider range of nationalities,
races, religions and cultures. By the end of the 1970s,
Australia had acquired an unmistakably new heterogeneous
face.

The official government policies reflected these social
developments, they moved from "assimilation" to
"integration" and then to "multiculturalism."
The Galbally Report (1978) was the turning point, when it
urged the Australian Government "to encourage the retention
of the cultural heritage of different ethnic groups and
promote intercultural understanding."

Australia has welcomed settlers and new citizens from
more than 200 countries. Few nations have managed to combine
ethnic and cultural diversity with national unity as
successfully as Australia. That's because Australia's
cultural diversity is seen by most people as a strength
which makes for a dynamic society.

Within a framework of laws, all Australians have the right to
express their culture and beliefs.

The multicultural nature of Australian society to me is one
of the most unique and rewarding aspects of living in
Australia.

Dear George,

Banjo keeps complaining on about how no one is able to tell him
the contributions that migrants have made to this country.
He's been told many times.
Plus - the historical record is there all one has to do is
Google it. Migrants like my parents helped solve an acute
labour shortage in Australia, especially in outlying areas.
They had an enormous economic impact on the country and
joined with other migrants in the rebuilding of Australia's
capital structures that were to serve the nation for many decades
to come. The same migrants could have accomplished a great deal
more, if the Australian authorities had made full use of their
skills and knowledge, instead of treating them all as unskilled
labour. Nevertheless, their economic contribution was
significant at a time when Australia needed it most.

Many newcomers established building companies, new factories,
retail shops, service and repair centres,
skating rinks, tailor shops and
even a complete town (Eucla).
Many more became self-employed in
small business and in all kinds of trades. They also created
secondary jobs with their high levels of demand for goods
and services. Many artists have contributed to the forefront of
Australian sculpture, painting, photography, and
other fields of the creative arts. Many also became art lecturers
and teachers and have influenced new generations of Australian
artists. Then we have literature, ballet music, and theatre
as well. Migrant dancers danced in leading Australian companies -
The Borovansky Ballet Company was founded by a migrant renowed
ballet teachers in Australia are immigrants.

Migrants have greatly valued education and training. They are
said to have sent more children to higher education and trades
than the national average. Many migrants have entered the
professions (after years of arduous study and sacrifice).
Some of the country's leading doctors, dentists, lawyers,
and others whose qualifications were not recognised in Australia,
went back to universities here and qualified again. Some
laboured during the day and studied at night.

But enough said.

You can't convince some people with blinkered views.

Foxy "Apart from food, many Australians seem to know very little about non-British migrants or their cultures."

Then you could refer to Australia as having culinary diversity or a multidietary society, but not cultural diversity or a multicultural society.

"already our nation has been enriched by the artistic, intellectual, and other attributes of migrant cultures"

Of migrant cultures, or migrant people?
There's a difference.

We can only be "enriched" if their conceptions are made appreciable to the Western mind.
Otherwise it's just incomprehensible gibberish.

It is your attitude that will die out.
The more unrealistic, chaotic and extreme immigration becomes, the sooner people will get sick to death of it.

The bonds of genetic kinship will never be "outmoded".
They are much stronger than any airy-fairy "global" identity.

I don't say anything "new"?
An honest awareness of history and human nature can't be "new", just accurate.

Your own comments are nothing new.
They're not even your own words most of the time.
Just copy-paste government/interest group propaganda ad nauseam.

You seem to think your opinion is unquestionable, self-evident and the future already decided.
You use this forum just to pat yourself on the back.

You forget about the many people reading these threads who aren't convinced or convicted either way.
Your arrogant, evasive tactics are not going to win them over.

Sun Tzu said the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
My side doesn't have to "win", you just have to lose, and you are doing a fine job of that.

Foxy, do not ever ask me to define or clarify anything ever again.

I have concisely and coherently defined my opinion (which is not "nonsensical" or extremist) and you just ignore it.

Foxy,

You have been asked this before, but do you have a script that you have followed relentlessly for years?

Lexi, Tuesday, 23 August 2011 8:09:41 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4653&page=7

With you it is like addressing a recorder on continuous loop. Or, more likely, a Xerox.

Contrary to what you imagine, the Australian people your cultural elitism causes you to denounce as 'nullaboring' and worse, actually do have traditions of worth and a culture that are worth retaining and they might have made some contributions too. Inconvenient facts you might concede, unless your goal is as it seems, to diversify your disliked 'whites' -who appear to be of British ancestry as you see them- out of existence.

Dear Shocker,

I won't be asking you anything else.
You've made your position crystal clear.
Thank You.

otb,

Stating things as they existed, is not a form of any sort of
"elitism," nor is it any sort of attempt to
denigrate Australian monoculture of that period.
It was simply the way things where at that time.
Therefore it shouldn't be surprising that the
same facts are repeated.

Unlike the "guest-workers" in Europe, the migrants (like
my parents), arriving in Australia after the Second World
War were expected by the Australian Government to settle
permanently and to assimilate. This explicit policy was
highlighted by the creation in 1947, of the Assimilation
Branch of the Australian Department of Immigration.

Assimilation meant blending into the Australian monoculture,
"with everyone living in the same way ...and sharing the
same aspirations."

This official attitude was supported by many "old"
Australians understandable determination to retain their
traditional Australian identity, even though such identity
was difficult to define.

Richard Boyer, the chairman of the ABC complained in 1956
that, when "invited by a group of new Australians to tell
them what the Australian way of life was," he found "putting
it into words was one of the hardest tasks that...(he had)
ever faced."

Let's get one thing straight for the record (again).
I am not anti the Brits or any other group.
Immigration has always been an important element in
Australia's nation-building.

We have integrated millions of people with diverse
backgrounds from over 200 countries and we have drawn
from diversity of build a successful nation.

We all recognise the values and principles
that reflect strong influences on Australia's history and
culture. These include Judeo-Christian ethics, a
British political heritage, and the spirit of the
European Enlightenment. Distinct Irish and non-conformist
attitudes and sentiments have also been important.

Today most people do not see as mandatory the quest for
conformity or a common set of beliefs as was the case
in the past.

On the contrary, today, respect for the free-thinking
individual and the right to be different (subject to the
law) are foundations of Australian democracy.

Foxy,
You said,"Banjo keeps complaining on about how no one is able to tell him the contributions that migrants have made to this country.
He's been told many times".

Now you know that is a lie. You deliberately change what I have said.

What I have said, and will keep repeating, is that you cannot show what practical benefits we have gained from multiculturalism. Certainly migrants have contributed, especially those post war up until MC was imposed. But the imposed ideology of multiculturalism has gained us nothing in practical terms. All MC has done is soak up vast amounts of funds and divide us into a nation of separate tribes. As you have acknowledged, MC was to foster the original cultures of migrants.

The diversity and enrichment benefits you spruke about is all in your mind and has no identifiable or practical application.

On top of that you completely ignore the detrimental aspects of many alien cultures. That is the price WE pay for your enrichment.

So we spend millions and experience anti social behaviour and alien cultural practices simply so middle income people can have a wide choice of eateries.

Foxy, "..the migrants (like my parents), arriving in Australia after the Second World War were expected by the Australian Government to settle permanently.."

You are forever making things up. That is demonstrably untrue for your Lithuanian parents. There was one flow of Lithuanians immediately post-WW2 when Arthur Caldwell, whom you inexplicably hate, offered sanctuary to the Lithuanians and some other ethnic groups after seeing them in camps, while he was overseas visiting. I previously supplied a public photo of Lithuanians thanking Mr Caldwell on their arriving ship.

The offer of sanctuary for whatever time they liked, citizenship as well if they chose, and work as well was very generous and open-ended.

Proof of the happiness of the Lituanians' experience in Australia was evidenced by the indisputable fact that very few left although they could easily have done so when independence was again restored. Also, as has been pointed out to you numerous times before, there is NO evidence whatsoever of the largest Lituanian community in Australia, in Sydney, ever claiming the discrimination and victim status you yourself are constantly demanding.

Dear onthebeach,

I am starting to realise what a fearful person you really are. Is this how you lead your life on a daily basis?

When I wrote; “In my youth nationalism wasn't a big thing at all” you asked“Where and when were you born?” then answered your own question with “You couldn't have been living in Australia or the West around or after WW2.”. So if someone doesn't fit into your sense of how the world should be then they are suddenly assumed to be 'other'. That my friend is a classic defense mechanism of an egocentric, xenophobic dolt.

When I gave answered your question with time and place it was if it just did not compute; “Your meandering reply was a self indulgence that did not address the reasonable question to you.”

You then went on to elevate my lack of nationalistic fervour to me having no “loyalty and pride in his country and its defence forces” and my dislike of overt American style nationalism as “hatred of the US” which is patently not what I said.

I had originally thought there might have been a bit of Varis (aka Game of Thrones) about you but that is not the case is it. Rather you are so desperate to attach labels to people, to class them as the 'other' that is informs most of what you do here.

It is hard to get angry about it, more just a little sad, concerned even, because there must be a better way to approach to life. We are not all out to get you, you don't need to be afraid, it is not you against the rest of us, different views are not a threat and hyping them all is a path to madness. Don't be afraid.

I can only contribute from a personal perspective, so, my thoughts:

Australia has been multifaceted for quite a while, even from the first fleet - as the English, Irish, Scots and Welsh were not exactly culturally homogeneous (and arguably still remain somewhat individualistic) - and has progressively grown more so ever since, with a hefty shift post WWI with an influx of European immigrants fleeing war, destitution and loss.
First shock. People of different appearance, language, habits, culture. But not so different really. My dad was one of these.
(I've copped a bit of stick because of my mixed roots, but I've nearly got over it.)

Bigger shock. Post WWII large influx fleeing war, genocide, destitution, the spread of communist ideology and actual presence, and a generally lousy situation.

Gradual acclimatisation, 'wogs' etc, until the really big shock - post Vietnam - when people were just getting over hatred of the 'Japs'. (Or it could have started a bit earlier.)
Asians. Now, there's something really different - physically, culturally, language, etc. Different with knobs on.

The Asians had to stick together to get by, to set up businesses (largely catering to the Asian community), to make a home in Asian enclaves. Pioneers in a foreign land.
Ok, they kept pretty much to themselves, and vice versa. Their kids started to fit in, and family reunion became a bit of a strain, but we're all getting by.
Chinese were already here, but they must have needed to swell their numbers to stay ahead of the Vietnamese. Triads?

Then, immigration must have become more open.
Now, a Middle-Eastern influx, and they didn't seem to even want to try to fit in. Strange dress, religion, 'culture'. But, confusion - some are Christians.

Then Africans. What's happening? What next? Did 'we' get a say?
Special schools, mosques - we'd got used to synagogues and skull caps, and we already had catholic schools, 7th days, Jehovahs, Mormons, etc - lots of colourful variety.
9/11 and skepticism. Mmmm.

MC is going to take a while, and it all seems to be going too fast.

SteeleRedux,

Facts should always be preferred to storytelling, myth-making and re-written history.

Dear onthebeach,

Could not agree with you more.

Saltpetre.

"Australia has been multifaceted for quite a while, even from the first fleet - as the English, Irish, Scots and Welsh were not exactly culturally homogeneous (and arguably still remain somewhat individualistic) - "

Definitely still individualistic; Wales is the only part of the UK where one may expect, as a matter of course, that English will be neither acknowledged nor spoken by a large part of the population.

Later this month I'll be visited by my two eldest sons, from Ireland, and we shall talk Irish Gaelic for the most part and they are both 6th generation Australian born!!

Dear Foxy,

Again, there is nothing in your factual posts that contradicts, or even addresses, my contention that distinguishing between multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism MIGHT explain the difference between Australian feelings about these matters in 1978 and today.

I have met many East European and East Central European post-WWII migrants within what used to be the Captive Nations Council. You would probably find most of then conservative, anticommunist DLP voters, but I never heard them complain about the way Australia treated them when they arrived here with the practically sole purpose of escaping Stalinistm in their home countries.

These were not my personal experiences, I arrived in 1968 and heard only stories (not complaints) from post-WWII refugees. About how even people with tertiary education had to labour for a couple of years in the bush, how, for instance, there was only one place in Melbourne, where you could buy genuine coffee, etc.

My experience in 1968 was different. When deciding to migrate to Australia, it was obvious to me that I would have to adjust to a life in what for me was a British cultural outpost. Yes, the food was still strange, e.g. the butchers cut the meat not along the fibres as in continental Europe but across, when looking for horseradish the greengrocer asked how many pounds a week should he order, etc..

However, another experience impressed me much more: When in a restaurant the waitress asked me, something like “would you like another plight”, and I responded with my poor English whether she meant plate, she apologised! This came to symbolise for me the Australian openness toward immigrants, its willingness to integrate them, and to use their input to broaden (not replace!) the traditional Australian way of seeing things. It was this experience that made me glad (I don’t like the word proud) to have become an Australian.

And that was ten years before the Galbally Report, and at a time when integration vs assimilation, multi-ethnicity vs multiculturalism were unknown distinctions.

otb,

Again to set the record straight for you.

Approximately 10,000 Lithuanian migrants came to
Australia in the late 1940s. They were refugees
who had fled Lithuania in or around 1944, to
escape the second Soviet occupation of their country.
They came as indentured labour, that is, every migrant
over the age of 18 had to enter into a two year
contract with the Australian government which obliged
the migrant to work wherever directed. The contracts
were strictly enforced, even if it meant that families
were split up.

On completion of their Government contracts, the Lithuanian
arrivals remained spread across the continent: Sydney, 2,500;
Melbourne 1,500, Adelaide 1,200; and smaller numbers in
hundreds of other locations.

Some unable to work in their professions or having found
the climate too trying, went overseas. According to some
sources, up to 2,000 re-settled in the USA. Smaller numbers
went back to Germany, and to several other countries, to live
permanently.

By 1996, the number of Lithuanians in Australia had dwindled
down from 10,000 to 4,222.

BTW: Lithuanians do not see themselves as "victims."
I have never inferred anything like that.
All I did was simply state
the conditions as they existed at that
time - conditions that people lived through and experienced.
This does not mean that those people saw themselves as "victims."
Nor do I "hate" Arthur Calwell.

You can believe whatever you want.
However, I do feel obliged to set the
record straight for you regarding the period that my
parents lived through.

You should take note however of what
SteeleRedux has pointed out to you.
You do need to get rid of all the obvious insecurities
you're carrying within you. No one is attacking you.
It's coming from within yourself. And that will eventually
do you a great deal of harm.

Foxy,

I have previously given the site for Australia's largest Lithuanian community wherein the history of Lithuanians in Australia is discussed at length.

Here it is for others to read as well,
http://www.slic.org.au/

The most relevant sections are under "Background briefing" and "Lithuanians in Australia".

Show me where they complain of the false promises, unrealistic expectations, unfairness and discrimination you appear to be alleging.

As has been pointed out to you before and there is very comprehensive evidence from authoritative sources, Australia post-WW2 was reeling from its conversion to a war economy and attempting to recover. There were thousands dead from defending Europe and thousands more returned severely injured, many of whom died soon after. There was not the employment even for the returning Diggers who were reasonably fit. Housing was inadequate and often not available.

The Lithuanians as you should remember from previous posts on this, were the first or among the very first refugees to be placed post WW2. The well-meaning and well-disposed Australian government and the Lithuanians themselves did well from all reports and should be applauded. There are no lemons to suck.

What you do is tell one side and against modern expectations of migrants in a modern, developed, First World nation. You need to get some balance and to do that you really need to acquaint yourself with conditions in post-WW2 Australia.

What should tip you off that you are over-the-top and damned unfair in your sledging of Australia for its alleged (by you!) poor treatment of Lithuanians is that the people affected, the Lithuanians themselves, are not complaining but have got on with life. Good for them and what a lesson for you.

Where and when were you born?
onthebeach,
probably neither, might be an academic.

otb,

Stating facts, historical
facts, and people's experiences at given periods of time
is not sledging off at Australia. You need to take things
in their proper context. Read what is actually being
written, and in response to what, and why, it is being
written.

Lithuanians are well integrated into
Australian society. They have achieved a high proficiency
in English and are participating in Australian cultural
activities. A considerable proportion of Lithuanian
immigrants also maintain, to varying degrees, their
national heritage and their membership of Lithuanian
associations.

Lithuanians are a self-sufficient migrant group. Long
before the principle of "User must pay" became fashionable
in Australia, the Lithuanians chose to finance all their
etnic interests out of their own pockets. Lithuanians in this
country also have their own Australian Lithuanian Foundation,
Inc. Its aims are to foster and financially supprt Lithuanian
migrants' cultural activities. Soon after their arrival
in Australia, Lithuanian women formed highly effective
self-help social service committees in Melbourne, Sydney,
Adelaide, and elsewhere. This was back in the days when
the Australian government-run welfare services were still in
the early stages. In 1975, the Lithuanian Women's Welfare
Association Inc. in Sydney built a village for elderly
citizens. In the 1980s, the Lithuanian Women's Association of
South Australia established hostel-type accommodation for
the elderly, incapacitated Lithuanians in Adelaide.

And the list goes on.

I fully acknowledge the fact that Lithuanians have successfully
integrated into Australian society. They also set about
establishing their own communities and within them recreated
all aspects of the rich Lithuanian culture they brought with them.

Migrants from non-English speaking countries and their
children permeate Australian society.
Through the study of this
country's history people regardless of his or
her ethnic background will gain a
deeper understanding of not only the struggles
of migrant groups, but the issues which face every ethnic
community in Australia. That's why the study of the history
of this country is important. It helps us understand some
of the problems we are faced with today - regarding
migrant groups.

George,
I agree, there have been countless thousands of migrants from many countries that have integrated and they, and their kids, now call themselves Aussie. Their ethnicity is not important, it is their preparedness to integrate and accept our laws and social standards. Like most Aussies, I do not give a damn about their ethnicity, if they respect our laws and society, that is what counts.

We are NOT multicultural, but are multi-racial, or multi-ethnic, to use your term.

There are only a few groups that cannot or will not respect our social standards and, I believe, we should stop further immigration of those groups. It is quite apparent that some cultural aspects are so ingrained that these people would be happier in another social environment.

Dear George,

Experts have pointed out that over the next few decades
Australians will need to be more receptive to ethnic
change and more engaged with multicultural
policies and approaches. Even if current immigration
policy remains in place, the skilled and educated intake
will not be coming from Europe.

Australia is likely to be even more ethnically diverse in
2050 than it is now, an experience which according to the
experts it will share with New Zealand, the United States,
and Canada.

This will require a political leadership which encourages
tolerance and harmony and which refuses to advocate
narrow nationalism. The political temptation to mobilise
xenophobia is incompatible with a rational immigration
program.

Such a program also requires a more humane approach to
issues like family re-union, settlement services, and refugees.
Future governments may need to be less rigid, less
obsessive, less directed by public prejudice and more
humane than they have been.

Some Australian attitudes to immigration and multiculturalism
are strongly engrained. Some are suspicious of immigration
and immigrants. It is a responsibility of governments to
explain the realities of their policies to the people and
for attitudes to change in the future there need to be
a greater degree of consensus and bipartisanship.
Sadly however, there are few signs that a more constructive
and bipartisan approach was being developed.

See you on another discussion.

About three hours ago I watched as Police put a young bloke onto a plane & in handcuffs. Nothing too unusual about that up here but what made me sad was the fact that some people who knew the young bloke walked up to him & waved him off. here was a culprit in handcuffs so he obviously was up to some serious no good & people wave him off ? I think they should have been sent to the klink as well for being so tolerant of his misdeeds.
Whatever happened to show a young offender some cold shoulder instead of making him feel sorry for himself ?

Saltpetre "MC is going to take a while, and it all seems to be going too fast."

Yes, but try getting the utopians pushing it to admit it should be done more delicately, gradually.

No, that might mean we have to temporarily say no to some types of people.
Even a temporary cessation is unthinkable!

Even for economic, not cultural reasons, they won't stop.
When the financial crisis started, did immigration stop or even severely reduce?

How about restricting immigration to only countries that have *proven* themselves our "equal" (as opposed to merely claiming and presuming equality).

This would mean immigration primarily from related peoples/cultures (Whites), as most of the "very high development" and high GDP-per-capita countries have majority White populations.
This would be anathema for the utopians, even though its basis is economic not racial.

There would be no more than half a dozen non-White countries who pass the test.

The range would be expanded only if and when other countries rise to our level, but that may take centuries, and in some cases will never happen.

Of course, this disadvantages people who would quite easily adapt to our society, like White South Africans.

They would be judged by the national status, not their personal one.

One solution would be that proof of ancestry from an approved country might be acceptable.
White South Africans have either British or Dutch ancestry, and the UK and the Netherlands would definitely qualify.

Foxy,

A study of history should seek the facts and put them into their historical context. You demonstrate no interest in doing that and avoid the subject entirely.

Yet there are plenty of newspaper and official documents from the time available in libraries. There is a treasure trove awaiting researchers, but of course while it is very worthwhile PhD work, government grants for research can slant research towards what squeaky wheels want found and furthers their entitlements, be that their government-funded sinecure or government benefits and likely both.

However at day's end it remains the fact that while you seek entitlement and rationalise your left cultural elitist distaste for 'whites' (as in the British, apparently) and all they have done wrong in the world, and claim discrimination and even victimisation, the truth will always out somehow.

What do you call white people who degrade those white people who actually are the buttered side of the bread for the former ? Someone here should know, there are plenty of them posting.
Any links Foxy ?

otb,

The research has already been done and dusted
old chap.
To which you've been referred to many, many, times.
However your faux concern for post-graduate
studies is a good ploy it's up there with my "Leftist
elitism" and supposed "anti-British" stance.

Okay fellas I will admit that did indeed raised a laugh.

Good old Shocker wanting more of those from “countries that have *proven* themselves our "equal"” then fingering South Africans as one of them. Well I suppose if you identify with them you might consider them as 'equal' but I hoped Australia would have been far more highly regarded than South Africa.

I am not completely unconvinced that the growing intolerance in this country has stemmed at least in some measure from excessive numbers of South Aftrican apartheidists making Australia home. Our culture of tolerance is undeniably under assault.

So to individual's Pythonesque question “What do you call white people who degrade those white people” perhaps he might like to ask some of our newly acquired 'apartheidists' because they certainly had some choice terms for people they thought were inferior, though I'm not sure the response would be flattering. Might go something like 'You wouldn't know a good denigration if it hit you in the mug'.

But anyway thanks again for the chuckle.

Foxy,

You can't get away with just saying that it is all 'done and dusted', because that is just another of you trademark blow-offs.

Quite apart from that, young Australians are fed up with being bent over backwards and forwards for new and higher taxes to support the victim industry. Those young Australians cannot even afford to have the children they want to have because they are paying for welfare and to the professional spruikers of 'victimhood' and 'entitlement' who swing from the guvvy teats.

SteeleRedux,
Who was talking about inferior people ? Only you brought that up. The rest of the posters are talking about cultural impact. You haven't answered my question either.
re Our culture of tolerance... what do you mean we. You're one of the most intolerant posters so don't include yourself in our group of tolerants. After all we tolerate you don't we but you don't tolerate us.
I think you're not switched on sufficiently to see what's coming otherwise you wouldn't make the comments you make.

Great explanation Shockadelic

You rightly point to the "core contradiction at the heart of multiculturalism" that allows non-western groups if racist-supremacists to go uncriticised BUT the odd lone white Nazi is milked for all the attempts to conclude from his existence that the entire white race is racist

But the real essential problem of this ordeal lies in an inability for people to properly conceptualize an authentic cultural promotion for true moral reasons . . . . . compared to . .
. . . . an inauthentic cultural promotion these people may focus upon transitory aspects such of the culture such as historical particularities and various historical deeds.

Mostly however, the kind who promotes his 'culture' by appraising their racial identity and historical and religious nature etc. essentially means that this person ties their culture into their racial aspect in an essential sense. That is why a racist might say things like "white race is the superior culture" as they inauthentic ally make the mistake to conflate an essential aspect to our human identity (i.e. moral values and human invention etc.) with some aspect of human identity that is merely a passing historical particular fact right now such as a racial mix, a skin tone, a hair and eye colour variation etc. or even other passing historically adopted factors.

I believe the Left and others in our western culture who misunderstand the concepts and issues so that they can find themselves openly condemning a white man for saying "proud white Aussie" as racist whilst not similarly condemning other ethnic cultures for the exact same type of inauthentic thinking and actions of each ethnic tribe which more often than not make essential to their identity those sane silly and transitory aspects like skin, race, religion, tradition and history (even food types)

Like you indicate -

the real racists apart from the odd twit white supremacist are the bulk of types of cultures/ethnic groups that make as part of their identity in an essential way silly and narrow tribal-specific aspects which results in racial-supremacy, ethnic and religious cleansing and genocide.

Dear individual,

You ask;

“Who was talking about inferior people ?”

Shocker was.

Then you state;

“You haven't answered my question either.”

Thought it was a riddle and you were going to spring the answer on us. I'm actually not quite sure who you were referring to with all your talk about bread and butter. Could you be more specific.

Next came the contention;

“After all we tolerate you don't we but you don't tolerate us”.

I'm not sure who 'we' is? But if it is the usual bunch spouting bigotry and harassing female posters then I suppose I tend to take an less than tolerant approach but I do try and make every effort to only serve back each thread what has been put up first.

That being said you really need not tolerate me in any form or fashion. In fact you could probably just ignore my posts, just skim past the suckers. Let the call go out over hill and dale, over valley and glen, over craig and cairn, hence forth tolerate no more young fella!

SteeleRedux, I stated that South Africa's national status is *not* acceptable, and White South Africans would therefore be excluded, unless there were some other mitigating criteria such as ancestry.

If White South Africans could establish their own country, that little pocket would suddenly be a First World country.
Unfortunately, they're not concentrated enough in any one location to do that.

If White South Africans' ancestors had not settled there, they would be the *same* people living in Britain or the Netherlands, and therefore in an approved country.

It's not their fault they're First World people living in a Third World country.

I didn't call anyone "inferior".
We may all indeed be equal, but *show me*, don't tell me.
Prove it.
If a Black nation has a GDP-per-capita that's one tenth of ours, where's the evidence of "equality"?.

No, don't blame past horrors. Many of the former Communist Eastern European countries have risen to our level within a decade or so.

Haiti has been independent for over *200* years and is still the pits.

Matthew S, I don't know whether linking genetic traits with cultural achievement is "inauthentic".

Genetic interactions can be quite complicated.
We probably only know the tip of the iceberg about the consequences of this or that gene/allele combination.

There may be no way to explain just how, but maybe blue/green/grey eyes and blonde/red/light brown hair might be linked to intelligence, emotional control, creativity or many other beneficial factors.

Yes, we learn much from "nurture" (environment), but that cultural environment may only exist because of our "nature" (genes/alleles) in the first place.

Our nature (genes) existed long before "nurture" (culture) even appeared.

The countries who have *proven* they are our equal (e.g. Japan, South Korea) had quite sophisticated cultures, even before modernisation.
The potential was always there.

The worst performers (African, Pacific Islands) had the most primitive cultures.
Maybe you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

otb,

Please stop.

white people who degrade those white people”
SteeleRedux,
A bot of selective quoting here, here's the rest. "who actually are the buttered side of the bread for the former ?"
That's the question I put to you & the likes of you. No riddle there.

re I'm not sure who 'we' is? We means those who care about this country, care about harmony, it means those of us who keep getting forced via our taxes to support the likes that the likes of you support for no good reason or outcome. You would,'t call my remark as pythonesque if you had the ability to digest what people who care more than you are saying.
You may be articulate but sadly you're having difficulty to translate that talent into substance of integrity.

Dear Shocker,

You wrote;

“I stated that South Africa's national status is *not* acceptable, and White South Africans would therefore be excluded, unless there were some other mitigating criteria such as ancestry.”

I did indeed neglect to attach 'White' to South African but we both knew whom I was talking about.

You claimed;

“I didn't call anyone "inferior".”

Don't be idiotic, of course you did, as soon as you used the word 'equal' rather than 'similar' or 'like'.

Then you had the temerity to suggest that though your immigration filter seemed racist, “its basis is economic not racial”.

Bollocks of the highest order.

Let's put it to the test.

Here are two stories about the plight of many white South Africans.

The first is about the poor white underclass that is growing in that country. As coloured South Africans are moving out of the shanty towns and into the middle class there is a section of the white community replacing them.
http://youtu.be/pFj0HdW2iDs

The second harrowing clip is about the numerous white South African underaged girls who are joining the ranks of child prostitutes in that country.
http://youtu.be/xISFxedkhl8

So my question to you is when does this section of white South African become unacceptable as immigrants to Australia and by the same token when do members of the coloured middle and upper classes become acceptable as prospective Australians?

SteeleRedux "I did indeed neglect to attach 'White' to South African but we both knew whom I was talking about."

Here is your original comment"

"Good old Shocker wanting more of those from “countries that have *proven* themselves our "equal"” then fingering South Africans as one of them. Well I suppose if you identify with them you might consider them as 'equal' but I hoped Australia would have been far more highly regarded than South Africa."

You both refer to "countries" and "South Africa".

You seem to miss the point entirely of what I said.

Yes, I'm well aware of the problems they are experiencing, which is precisely why I wouldn't want to exclude them, but they would be if judged by *national* status.

They are one oppressed minority that could really use our help.

I use the word equal because that's the buzzword the proponents of global immigration use to justify an anything-and-everything policy.

Since we're all "equal" it supposedly doesn't matter if they're "similar" or "like" us.

But "equality" is a claim with little evidence to back it up.

GDP-per-capita and the Human Development Index are evaluations based on reality, not idealism.

Most non-White countries have yet to show any evidence they're our "equal".
Don't just claim it, *prove* it.

"though your immigration filter seemed racist, “its basis is economic not racial”. Bollocks of the highest order."

I want a totally racially/ethnically based policy.
But I'm smart enough to know that's unlikely at present.

This policy *is* based on economics, but has the pleasant side effect of mostly White immigration.

GDP-per-capita and the Human Development Index are *neutral* to race or ethnicity.
The two lists are almost a mirror image of each other.

Those lists show a marked bias in favour of Whites.
This is reality, not idealism.

Why wouldn't we want the people who have proven their abilities *and* would most easily adapt to our society (being "similar/like" us to begin with).

Why would we want people with the worst performance and least similarity?
What could possibly justify such insanity? "Equality".

The quote “that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” is attributed to Samuel Johnson though I am partial to Bob Dylan's lines;

“They say that patriotism is the last refuge
To which a scoundrel clings
Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king ”

The veteran I spoke of earlier is Norm Knopp OAM. He was a Corporal in the 2nd/8th battalion of the 6th Division in the Australian Army. While recovering from his injuries from a grenade attack he, being a craftsman before the war, carved the kangaroo adorned inkstand that was used in the Japanese surrender in New Guinea. It can just be made out on the Wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

When asked what was his most vivid memory of the war this was the reply;

Quote;

Don was a mate of mine, he came around the night before and he said he was going out to Long Ridge the next day. I said be careful, Long Ridge was a strong post of the Japanese, they were all dug in. They had plenty of gun fire there and everything, and he went out there to clean them out he reckoned.

But he got hit. In the side of the face. He had all of his face taken out on his right side. But he had an Owen gun and he kept his senses and a Japanese soldier had come to kill him and he shot the Japanese soldier at point blank range and the Japanese soldier had fallen over his chest.

I had just come back from another patrol and Jake Farrow said to me that Colin Diffey was looking for me. He was our boss. I went down to see him and he said "you can say yes or no to this, I would hate to send you out there, but would you go out to Long Ridge and see if you can find Don?"

Cont...

Cont...

So I went out to where the other soldiers were from the platoon that Don was in and asked would anyone help me. They said "you're bloody mad, you'll get killed!"

I said I'll go on my own then.

So I got them to tell me where they thought he was. I went out on my own and located him and I found Don and he had a dead Jap across him. Don had accidentally put another bullet through his own leg, I didn't know that yet though. I figured that if Don saw me he might think that I was another Japanese soldier and shoot me too, so I circled around him and came up behind his shoulder. I got right up to him and I said "Don, it's Norm".

He said "Thank Christ for that. I knew someone would come out to get me so I stopped here".

I said "Well you're going to stop where you are and you're going to leave the dead Jap on your chest and I'm going to get some help to go and get you."

When I got back, I said to the others, "I've found Don and I need some help to bring him back in."

I said "Who's coming?"

I wanted seven blokes. I had no trouble getting them.

So we turned around and we went straight out to get him. It took about 20 minutes to get there through the jungle. We found him again and he was conscious and speaking to us.

I said "we'll put you on a stretcher and carry you in."

Don said "I can walk!"

He reckoned he could, but he couldn't.

So bringing him back we ran into a Japanese patrol and they opened up on us with machine gun fire. A "woodpecker" gun. They killed 3 of our soldiers.

Cont..

Cont..

We found a bomb hole to get down into and surrounded Don and picked off the Japanese when we saw them. This went on 15 minutes, with exchanges of fire before the Japanese cleared out. I suppose there could have been around a dozen Japanese. We picked off about 5 or 6 of them. I was trying to look after Don as best as I could.

Once it was nightfall, we got back to the Danmap River and went up the river to our base. It was about chest high in the river.

Our Colonel Stacey Howdon was there and I said I am prepared to take him down to hospital there.

He said "No, you're finished, you've had enough for today. Is there anything you want?"

I said no.

"Do you want a whisky?"

"No".

"Do you want a beer?"

"No".

"Do you want a cigarette?"

"Yes." I smoked back then.

He gave me a tin of 50 Craven A's and I kept that tin with me the whole war and still have it.

After that I went back to where our blokes were camped. That was the end of that day. All in a day's work.

Don was put in hospital and operated on and had a plate put in his face, then they sent him back to Australia. He was operated on when he was back in Australia and he died during that operation. But he made it back to see his family. I met his son Wayne a couple of years ago at an ANZAC Day parade. He never saw his father as his mother was pregnant when Don died. Wayne wrote me a lovely letter.

That was the most vivid experience. I had nightmares about it for many years but more recently I am a lot better.

End quote.

Cont...

Cont...

It was a truly heroic personal account no doubt replicated innumerable times throughout the war on all sides of the conflict.

It has its resonance with many Australians because of the fact we can identify with Norm. He is of our parents or our grandparents generation. We have a sense of his character, of his upbringing, of his sense of mateship. We can appreciate his efforts purely on a universal level, but they understandably speak with even greater power to those capable of more easily put ourselves in his shoes.

Therein lies the nub. Do his actions show the Australian soldier was superior and braver than the others? Do they show that Australia is a better nation? Should they drive patriotism and nationalism that stiffens our willingness for war and further glories?

The answer is patently no.

There is no reason not to feel that Norm is an exceptional fellow, he certainly is, and no reason not to have to have a real sense of pride in the efforts of he and his mates, but we have to realise that it is our understandable empathy for him that can hype such feelings, thus making them ripe for capture by the unscrupulous, the nationalist and the war mongers.

Ultimately the best way of honouring someone like Norm is to heed his call “that we stay away from wars, they are no good.” In my opinion this means being highly suspicious of those who feel we should be more like the Americans in our patriotism/nationalism because it is these people who send our young to die in far of places.

SteeleRedux "stay away from wars, they are no good...
these people who send our young to die in far of places."

No need to send them away anymore.
Your favoured ludicrous immigration policy is bringing the next war to our very own streets.
I wonder whose side you'll be on this time.

SteeleRedux wrote: Ultimately the best way of honouring someone like Norm is to heed his call “that we stay away from wars, they are no good.” In my opinion this means being highly suspicious of those who feel we should be more like the Americans in our patriotism/nationalism because it is these people who send our young to die in far of places.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Many Americans do not support US soldiers going all over the globe. President Obama has scaled back US involvement overseas and has resisted attempts for the US to get more involved in the Syrian conflict. I think what Bush did in Iraq was wrong, but please don’t forget he was supported in that by Blair and Howard.

I was in the US Army in WW2, and I rejoice in our victory over Germany and Japan. If it were not for the US the world could be dominated by Nazi Germany, imperial Japan or Soviet Russia. Would that be better? However, even in that war those Americans who didn’t want to participate on grounds of conscience were allowed to choose alternate service.

You generalised Americans as warmongers. Perhaps, it might be well to read of the many US citizens who have opposed militarism.

http://www.usip.org/publications/peacemakers-toolkit will tell you about the United States Institute for Peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League will give you info about the US Anti-Imperialist League.

The American Anti-Imperialist League was an organization established on June 15, 1898, to battle the American annexation of the Philippines as an insular area. The anti-imperialists opposed expansion, believing that imperialism violated the fundamental principle that just republican government must derive from "consent of the governed." Rather than opposing American territorial expansion on economic or humanitarian grounds, the League argued that such activity would necessitate the abandonment of American ideals of self-government and non-intervention — ideals expressed in the United States Declaration of Independence, George Washington's Farewell Address and Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

Unfortunately the voices for peace have not always prevailed, but Americans are no more warlike than Australians who have been involved in many imperialist wars.

Australians who have been involved in many imperialist wars.
david f,
but you don't mind acceping all the benefits do you ? Don't you realise that your compassion is nothing more than a fashionable fad you can afford only because those "imperialists" did all the fighting so that the likes of you can now condemn them. I'd love to see your compassion after you've lost everything you've ever been given.

Dear davidf,

I have only just discovered your post addressed to me and apologise for not furnishing a reply before now.

You wrote;

“You generalised Americans as warmongers.”

Not as such. The point I would make is that the Patriotism/Nationalism which so extensively pervades the American culture means a call for their country to go to war is not met with the same opposition that might otherwise greet the leaders of other countries.

I marched against the war in Iraq with my children on a wet Melbourne Friday with thousands of others. It was the biggest anti war protest this country had seen since Vietnam. It was the first in many events staged around the globe the largest being in Rome where 3 million people marched while 1,500,000 protested in Madrid and a million in London, yet the New York rally struggled to reach 350,000.

In my judgement there is a taste for war, for the grand, for the glory, in nearly every leader. In a democracy it is the people who check that propensity. John Howard's case for us to go to war in Iraq was centred squarely around our obligations to support the US since this was the only narrative that had any currency with the wider population.

So no I don't think the American population clamoured for war in Iraq, indeed there is a isolationist streak within it neatly articulated by Ron Paul with this ad;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxyYjNIVsT4

I do however feel they are a more compliant populous when their government wishes to lead them into war purely because of their strong patriotism, which is seemingly at odds with their purported ethic of freedom and individualism.

Ultimately though davidf the fact the American government spends over 4 times as much as any other nation on resources with which to engage in war can only lend support to the notion that American exceptional-ism includes a greater willingness to use those resources than any other developed nation.

Dear SteeleRedux,

You wrote: In my judgement there is a taste for war, for the grand, for the glory, in nearly every leader. In a democracy it is the people who check that propensity.

I agree with your first sentence. I disagree with your second sentence. Although I was one of the many who marched against the Iraq War I think we who opposed the war were in a minority. I think a lust for war goes along with democracy.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9631 points to my essay titled "Popular democratic governments are a danger to the world".

However, the amount of money spent on preparation for war and actual war does not, to my mind, indicate a propensity for war. It indicates the fact that the US economy is a war economy. If the army were demobilised and all military contracts were cancelled the immediate rsult would be depression with a great increase in employment. The US is by far the biggest arms supplier in the world. The money the Middle East drains from the US in return for fossil fuels comes back for military equipment. I feel Obama desires peace than any recent president. However, it would be politically impossible to switch to a peace economy.

'a great increase in employment' in my previous post should be 'a great increase in unemployment'

Dear davidf,

If I may be so bold I fear your argument is incomplete. To agree that in all leadership there is “a taste for war” but then disagree that “in a democracy it is the people who check that propensity” surely begs the question what checks the propensity for war in the dictator?

Your otherwise well argued article also seems to suffer from this same omission. The conclusion you invite us to accept is that dictators are too busy quelling internal unrest to countenance hostilities outside their borders. I'm afraid history is a poor guide in this respect. Even if we take the most dictatorial of current nations, the horrendous North Korea, it would be difficult to make the case they are not overtly aggressive toward other nations.

Dear SteeleRedux,

In my article I pointed out the difference between popular and unpopular governments - not only democracies and other governmental forms. A dictatorship may also be popular. Through a large part of its rule Nazi Germany was also a popular government. The German people enthusiastically supported Hitler and the Nazis. The Soviet government was much less popular and the security apparatus to keep its people in line was much larger in proportion to the size of the population. The Soviet had a great deal of trouble when it invaded Finland. When the Nazis invaded many Soviet citizens joined them. It was only when the Nazis brutality towards the civilian population of the USSR became evident that that the Soviet resistance went into high gear.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/12/15/asia-pacific/jang-purge-shows-north-power-base-is-unstable/#.U05nBo0U_IU is a story that indicates that Kim's hold on power in North Korea is insecure.

Dear david f,

>>When the Nazis invaded many Soviet citizens joined them. It was only when the Nazis brutality towards the civilian population of the USSR became evident that that the Soviet resistance went into high gear.<<

You are so right here, but many Westerners do not realise it. Ukrainians (and also Russians) welcomed what they saw as the Westerners (the German army) as their liberators from the Soviet oppression and were terribly disappointed. Perhaps this can explain some Ukrainians' and Russians' distrust of Westerners even today. Like a woman will become suspicious of all males if after having just been raped is raped again by the man she thought came to rescue her.

Dear davidf,

It appears exactly the same scenario occurred in Iraq during the war. Take for instance the city of Fallujah whose mayor was initially an enthusiastic supporter of the American presence. The unprovoked and indiscriminate gunning down of protesters marching to express dismay at the occupation of a school served to quickly alienate the population. Further killings of protesters saw support of the occupation turn to support of insurgents and the rest is a bloody and brutal history.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Although I am an American and wish my country well I think you described what happened. Troops trained for combat are dehumanised as part of the training. In addition to that in Iraq many Americans had contempt for the 'ragheads' as they called them. I was in the US Army during WW2 and doubt that, except for the more sophisticated technology, much has changed. Since we were the victors in that war, we were never called to account for the atrocities we committed. With the US refusing to sign and ratify the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court we will continue evading responsibility for our crimes.