Foxy "Your ancestors as well as mine - all came from somewhere else at some time."

So did the Aborigines.

The "Lithuanians" didn't suddenly appear out of thin air in "Lithuania" either.

They descend from a proto-Baltic people, who descend from Indo- Europeans, who descend etc.

If you negate the reality of "Australians" as a distinct local native ethnic group, by stating they're actually something else (British, European, Lithuanian), you negate the realities and histories of ALL peoples, because ultimately NO people on Earth had ancient ancestors *originating* in the land they now inhabit (except perhaps Ethiopians?).

Lithuanians are only Lithuanians, because they branched off from a former group (Baltic) and established their own territory (Lithuania).

They could only do this by separation from and exclusion of others not considered "Lithuanian".

Same goes for every other ethnic group (including no-hyphen-required Australians) and their homelands.

Branching/separating + exclusion + territory (usually conquered, not uninhabited) = Ethnic group/homeland.

It doesn't matter if this process began in 1788 BC or 1788 AD.

Dear Shocker,

Modern concepts of "nationality" and "ethnicity"
are fluid. Many nationalist historians of the
past timply used language and religion, to assign
national identity. Today, ethnicity is variously
seen as a set of characteristics pertaining to a
certain nationality and culture; or as a by-product
of the elitist manipulations aimed at winning mass
support; or as a cultural artefact or "a race without
the biology." The terms "nation" and "state" are
sometimes used inter-changeably as a system of human
classification. Alternatively "nation" is occassionally
resorted to signify a "country."

This issue can be complicated further, when nationality is
superimposed on citizenship. These two terms are often
used as synonyms in Australia. In that case, an infant of any
ethnic origin is said to acquire Australian "nationality"
by being born in Australia. Pn the other hand, the
European understanding is different. For example, recent
German citizenship laws stipulated that "the key to German
identity is found in the blood. A German is not someone born in
Germany, but someone born to ethnic German parents anywhere in
the world."

This separation of the two concepts of "nationality" and
"citizenship" will help to explain the attitudes and the
behaviour of Lithuanian immigrants (and others) in Australia.
It also lies at the roots of their belief that they could be
good Australian citizens and loyal Lithuanian nationals at
the same time. The political refugees of over 65 years ago
have become loyal Australians, although still with strong
emotional ties to Lithuania.

TBC

cont'd ...

Dear Shocker,

At present, Australia is one of the most ethnically
diverse societies in the world. Well over twenty per
cent of all Australians were born in another country,
more than half of these have come to Australia from
non-English-speaking countries of Europe, the
Middle East, South America, and Asia. According to
given stats more than 7 million (42 per cent) were born
outside Australia or had a parent born outside
Australia. Over 17 per cent speak a language other than
English at home.

However, the concept of multiculturalism continues to have
different meanings to different people. Anti-migrant
prejudices exist. Some Australians still believe that
"a unique Australian society and identity emerged with
Federation." These people are "most comfortable with a
singular national identity and of course assimilationst
policy." But as has been shown with the defeat of "One
Nation," these people are a minority.

Most Australians feel that the multicultural nature of
Australian society means that there is no single-national
identity but a gathering of many cultures and this is one
of the most unique and rewarding aspects of living in
Australia. The nature of being Australian is to be part
of this diversity.

Foxy, please stop confusing Shocker and OTB with logic and intelligence. Show some mercy, as the poor boys are barely coping.

Dear Jay,

Thanks for your humour.

It helps.

However, I am obliged to try and get through
with facts and documentation.

This comes from the prescribed text for year
twelve high school students in Victoria
that my son lent me called "The Changing
Australians: A Social History,"
under the heading - "The White Australian."

"While Australian television shows like "Skippy"
(about life in a national park as seen through
the adventures of a tame kangaroo) were popular.
the character of the Aussie housewife was mocked
by the clever comedy skits of over-the-fence-natter
by the Australian actress Dawn Lake. "You tell 'em
love!" became the symbol of the tea-sipping-hair-in-
curlers-over-the-fence-brigade."

"Later this humour was turned to the "Ocker" male, in
the style of Graham Kennedy and the writing of Nino
Culotta, and the city suburbs became the
backdrop for the new Aussie image."

" Now the language of the pub-crawling, Aussie gained
popularity. "You drongo," or "He's a galah," became the
accompaniment to the traditional "bloody bastard!"

"The suburban life and well-being of Australian society
became the butt of many jokes and the intolerance towards
"new Australians," and "coloured" was sent up as an
unjustifiable prejudice."

"It was not until the 1970s that the "Ocker Aussie" was
packaged for world consumption in films, cartoons, comics,
but once done, the exaggerated image of "Bazza (Barry)
Mackenzie" became one which many Australians were no
longer so proud of. This critical self-consciousness
had become more and more apparent in the late 1960s, and
forced both politicians and the public to revise not
only policies but also many of hte long-held and
cherished notions about themselves and the rest of the world."

I crave debate on issues and exchange of ideas of how we can solve real or perceived problems in our society. I've just started to come back to OLO after a quite a long hiatus. What I find interesting is the flaming and ridiculing of persons with different views without articulating the whys of their view.

Foxy and Suse, two of the very few of the women who were once on this forum and still valiantly posting. And there are a number of men too who are able to voice opinions, with which I might not agree, but will provide food for thought.

But there are a small group of men on this site who are virulent bullies and as far as I can see, reading through all the posts for the last few weeks on a variety of topics, really add absolutely nothing to the thread. It's abuse, upon abuse, upon abuse. It's a shame.

OLO could be a really great independent forum presenting issues from both conservative and progressive views resulting in a discussion as to why a particular avenue will result in the desired outcomes better or quicker.

Runner, I know many Christians. From the Evangelical (best friend) to those belonging to mainstream churches. In fact, I married into a family with a long history (4 generations) of being ministers and serving church and community. I fortunately have never encountered one like you. When I read some of your postings, you do not remind me of the teachings of Jesus Christ, but more those he railed against, like the pharisees.

Some of the others are just simply afraid of a changing world. It's fact fellows, the human family has never been static in regards to what it looks like or values, no matter how you may wish it to be otherwise.