Natham (n),

"Obviously you have a very child like view of what multiculturalism encompasses."

I don't know Banjo what your views are - as you have not put them down (in terms of this discussion page) - and you don't seem to want to discuss these further - so some may argue, that in its own self is childish.

The Commonwealth Government has identified three dimensions of multicultural policy, and the below are from that link, along with my personal viewpoints:

1. Cultural identity: the right of all Australians, within carefully defined limits, to express and share their individual cultural heritage, including their language and religion;

My view: So in terms of sharing cultural heritage, this is not something that should be looked down upon (as it is by some), when the term "multiculturalism" is used.

2. Social justice: the right of all Australians to equality of treatment and opportunity, and the removal of barriers of race, ethnicity, culture, religion, language, gender or place of birth;

My view: Fair treatment for people (in general and where reasonable), yet their are still people, with a conspiracy theory, that some in our community receive too many benefits based on how they (look), from an external view (like skin colour or what they wear.

3. Economic efficiency: the need to maintain, develop and utilize effectively the skills and talents of all Australians, regardless of background.

My view: I currently see a medical specialist who is not of an Anglo-Saxon background. She is very intelligent and has excellent skills in the area she works in - and I have been impressed with her work, since I have seen her as a doctor.

https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/programs-policy/a-multicultural-australia/national-agenda-for-a-multicultural-australia/what-is-multiculturalism

So in terms of wanting to celebrate and recognise the benefits of living in a society, with a range of people (from a range of backgrounds) you seem to either not know your own cultural background - or seem to think your family came out to Australia from nowhere. They didn't - they came from another country. That's not a bad thing to celebrate or recognise is it?

Foxy,

".... Originally it was Anglo-Celtic...."

Costello got it wrong (or was misquoted) as there were around 60 nationalities on the First Fleet,
http://www.racismnoway.com.au/teaching-resources/anti-racism-activities/puzzles/quizzes/19.html

and among the different races represented in those nationalities were some Negroes.

Dear Is Mise,

Peter Costello was referring to the Australian Government's
official policies that remained in force for 65 years.
The Australian Federal Government was very selective in
its migrant intake. The White Australia policy was
introduced in 1901 in the form of the Immigration
Restriction Bill.
The exclusion of non-Europeans was later strengthened by
other acts of parliament and by the notorious dictation test.
(Murphy, B. (1993) "The other Australia: Experience of
migration." Melbourne: Cambridge University Press).

History books tell us that
in the middel of the 20th century, the majority of Australian
immigrants came from the United Kingdom. The population
changed dramatically after World War II when Australia
increased its migrant intake considerably and broadened the
range of countries from which the immigrants were allowed to
come. 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 inter-action 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
politicians and civic leaders were preared 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--
promoting assimilation policies. The contributing factors
included generally changing social attitudes, war service,
travel, foreign students in Australia, The revised immigration
policy allowed new people to come and settle in Australia;
people from a wide range of nationalities, races, religions,
and cultures. By the end of the 1970s Australia had acquired an
unmistakably new heterogeneous face.

Dear Is Mise,

The concept of multiculturalism continues to have
differetn meanings for different people.
Some Australians still believe that "a unique Australian
society and identity emerged with Federation and...this
identity should be the basis of immigrant assimilation."
Even our former Prime Minister John Howard has been
reported to be most comfortable with a singular national
identity and assimilationist polcy (Marginson, S. (1997a)
"Educating Australia: Government, economy and citizen since 1960."
Cambridge and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press).

Fox,

You quote John Howard implying that he somehow supports your opinions. However you are not comfortable at all with assimilation are you? Your idealism expressed broken record, ad nauseum, brooks no less than endless diversity to wipe out any vestige of the 'white' culture you and other culturally-cringing, elitist leftists despise and sledge.

It is the migrants themselves who benefit from immigration, with the population of the host/receiving country paying for them, both through ramped up taxes for infrastructure, health, housing and welfare and indirectly through loss of culture and quality of life. That is especially so with the extreme MC that you support, which puts such a premium on the maintenance of foreign cultures, even where there is obvious conflict with our own.

The political correctness of multiculturalism allows no independent scrutiny, no comprehensive audit and accounting for the direct and indirect costs of the over-enthusiastic immigration that has been so strongly criticised even by Labor Premiers, examples being Anna Bligh and Bob Carr.

There are many Australians including many earlier migrants themselves, who are demanding that the federal government:

- roll back the immigration numbers;

- be more discriminating in judgement to manage risks and give preference to the most suitable, skilled migrants who can and want to assimilate; and

- do more for the young Australian couples who have been paying for the welfae and infrastructure for migrants and their families and are taxed so high to do that, that they cannot afford to have children themselves.

Bluntly, there is a large majority of voters who are demanding that the federal government stop expending outlandish amounts of taxpayers money to foster and maintain foreign cultures at the expense of our own. The concerned, never listened to majority will continue to vote out governments that cynically serve the interests of ethnic lobbyists at the expense of the broad Australian public just to shore up the promise of a few percent of ethnic votes in marginal seats.

I suspect that the usual culprits from the left have more trouble celebrating Australia Day and also Foundation Day (now changed to WA day in WA) than most do celebrating multi cultural day. I don't mind a bit of cooked cat and dog when celebrating multi cultural day. I am however thankful for the hospitals, schools, roads, electricity and other luxuries built here thanks to the British.