The Forum > General Discussion > We don't need to emphasise our national culture
We don't need to emphasise our national culture
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Page 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- ...
- 19
- 20
- 21
-
- All
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 2 April 2014 4:17:12 PM
| |
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. Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 2 April 2014 5:13:59 PM
| |
"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. Posted by individual, Wednesday, 2 April 2014 7:39:02 PM
| |
Divergence,
Thanks for the links. Look forward to seeing more of your postings. Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 2 April 2014 10:12:22 PM
| |
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 Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 3 April 2014 9:01:28 AM
| |
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. Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 3 April 2014 6:09:02 PM
|
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.