Pericles.... ur wrong. Mine CAN and indeed does include yours.

Tolerance is important.

In the 'PROCESS' of homogonization, assimilation, etc.. we can do no less than tolerate those things which the less assimilated find it difficult to leave.
Simple example.. a Japanese man will most likely have difficulty not 'bowing' when he meets a new person here.. What.. do we laugh, condemn, rebuke, rant at him ? Of course not.. we TOLERATE him.. we don't reciprocate the bow..but we let him do what he feels comfortable with and then shake the blighters hand....

I have pointed out very clearly (I thought) that the 'ONE' Australia, Culture and Race which I dream of...will NOT be 'WASP'...I said in my original piece that our skin color might be a bit 'off' white, our noses might be a bit flatter.. our eyes might have a slightly different shape.. as people intermarry, the new ONE-ness emerges.

My vision does not even require a 'single' religion.. its as diverse as we are today. I would draw the line on certain things, as you well know. But no need to repeat that here.

Please actually read what I say next time.

That's just tap-dancing, Boaz, and you know it.

>>I have pointed out very clearly (I thought) that the 'ONE' Australia, Culture and Race which I dream of...will NOT be 'WASP' I said in my original piece that our skin color might be a bit 'off' white, our noses might be a bit flatter.. our eyes might have a slightly different shape.. as people intermarry, the new ONE-ness emerges.<<

But how do you actually start the process? Presumably - and this is from your own posts - there has first to be an agreement on the culture towards which your melting-pot will strive. It has absolutely nothing to do with inter-marriage - this has happened in the past and will continue into the future, until your coffee-coloured people emerge - and everything to do with the purpose behind it.

You cannot claim, at this late stage, that you would be happy for "any" culture to be the end-result of your vision - it is there, front and centre: your definition of Australian culture, together with its handshakes and barbecues and its mateship, has to be the one that is imposed on the rest of us. We cannot barrack for Panathinaikos or Inter Milan, it has to be Collingwood (or possibly Melbourne, in your case?). We cannot prefer spanakopita to footy pies, or pho to a lamb roast.

Tolerant of differences? I don't think so.

Can someone actually define what is Australian culture?

In the 1940's and 1950's everything was pretty much anglo. The food was appalling. It was no coincidence that the only English "chef" to make a note for himself until that time was Sweeney Todd ... and he was executed. I recall when on study leave in the late 80's buying a pie - and I kid you not - not only was the pastry heavy with lard, but I had to lever it off from my palate with a fork. Current English chefs are heavily influenced from elsewhere.

I don't like barbeques which are generally attended by more flies and/or mosquitoes than guests. In fact, I would prefer to undergo root canal work than attend one.

Now for sports. I have no doubt that I am going to insult at least one person on this site, if not all. It is not my intention. I do concede that sport brings great joy to Aussies - and just as often moves them to tears of deep emotion - so serves a purpose. However, the sight of grown men fighting for, and chasing an inflated bladder round a paddock brings me no pleasure at all.

I am a great lover of nature, but this doesn't extend to being packed penguin like with others, (generally intent on displaying the "before body" from a Jenny Craig advert in the skimpiest bathers - Bring on on the Burqa Bathers!) on an extremely hot beach, getting sand in places where sand shouldn't be, burnt, ... and as I sink like a stone ....

cont ...

It seems that Aussies in the art world have to go overseas before acceptance here.
Unfortunately, any form of art in Australia does not get the financial support and recognition here, as the arts do in other countries.

Real culture - indeed any form of intellectual debate - in Australia is rather threadbare. Most of what we have, came from European post-war
immigrants. Perhaps this is why people feel threatened by current new-comers.
Our Australian culture is superficial.

With all the problems in the USA - and none can deny they have them - I have never met an American of whatever racial or national background, who has not been proud to be an American. It is this mix that gives the US its vitality in every field of endeavour. Their parents, or grandparents, may still follow the old ways, and whilst their grandchildren are completey acclimatized to modern US culture, their original culture (and experiences of their grandparents) remains in their background, enriching their contribution to society. Some Afro-American women, whose forebears predate most of current American society, have taken to wearing their traditional costumes - and how magnificent these are.

An observation. We never question the origins of classical music, art, literature, or indeed philosophy; even certain crafts. Those that practice in these fields are knowledgeable not only about our western heritage, but also about that from all parts of the world, often looking to these for new inspiration or ideas. But they never ever deny the value of the original product and process, whatever its origins.

I would not define a militant as a terrorist. A militant goes to war in an orderly fashion. He formally declares war, wears a uniform, observes conventions and attacks the enemy.
A terrorist is a low-life coward who hides his face under a towel or puts a bag on his head. He employs women and children to die in his place and tells them they are martyrs for his cause. He does not have the guts to attack an armed man so he attacks innocent civilians, old and young. He strikes fear in a community but does not declare himself such that the victims can retaliate.

Pericles. I'll answer the question 'how does one get it started'....

Yes..it DOES indeed require a recognition of a prevailing culture. This is self evident.
BUT... to do so, does not mean we must enshrine it any more than it already IS.... the mood, texture, and fabric of our legal and social system is in reality based on ONE basic confluence of history, religion and culture. (British/Irish/Scottish/Northern European. It does not reflect 'one' individual from those cultural tributaries as much as it reflects the commonality of them all.

So... the starting point is already present. We just have to take it the next step. Remember Dorothea Mckellars poem ? "My Country". There is an 'Australian' identity.

TOLERANCE..DIFFERENCES. Please view this video, and see just how EASY it is for 'difference' to result in tragedy. What have I been saying so many times ? "When you emphasise difference, it only takes a small spark to ignite racial/cultural/religious strife".

and here is some evidence to support that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us_HTaEvDbk&watch_response

In the vid, you will note that a Christian town was ravaged by Druze Muslims, based on a single false report by a Druze teenager that Druze women had been portrayed pornographically on the internet.

One spark..... and the fire is alight because of....'difference'.

Militants arise from difference.

cheers