lets open our minds people (2 Viewers)

[robo-andie]

So what, is it a requirement? Obviously you haven't been to Griffith or Cooma, high number of immigrants from the Snowy Mountains Scheme.

IMO it isn't a requirement. I was just asking if others felt that there needed to be a multi-racial/cultural society present in the majority of Australian towns/cities, for it to justify Australia labelling themselves as multi-cultural and diverse. Or, whether simply being able to accept diversity and other cultures/races, can be used to justify the label.

 

[_dhj_]

We do not live in a multi-cultural society, we live in a multi-racial society, as the former is fundamentally flawed. The sooner that people realise the implications of culture in relation to conflict, as history quite explicitly conveys, the better off Australia and other such countries will be...

Culture itself is such a subjective concept and in saying that, any effort to emphasise the value of one particular culture over another is intrinsically invalid. Features may be slightly more distinctive, but that in no way removes the value of the 'other'..

Some noted cultural conflicts :

- Serbs and Croats
- Jews and Palestinians
- Shiites and Sunnies
- Greeks and Macedonians
- Japanese and Chinese
- Greeks and Spartans... etc etc etc

It may not be the driving force, the cultural difference existed as a catalyst in each of the aformentioned examples..

Although it may seem narrow minded, unless society exists in a uniform and consensual manner, which of course would be rather dull, then conflict will continue to exist and prosper. People are not scared of race, religion or ethnicity; Individuals and the collective are scared of DIFFERENCE. Its an inherent trait of human nature and the human mentality, and until the idealistic, leftist dreamers of the world realise that human foibles will ruin their plight for perfection, we will have to continue to debate an array of endless debates..

Wrong. In all of your examples it's the antagonism between the two groups is racial or historical rather than cultural. It is not because one group's culture conflicts with another, but because one group has an inherent racial hatred of the other (due to historical antagonisms). Take Japanese and Chinese for example - both share confucian values (in fact alot of Japanese culture derived from chinese culture). Cultural differences is not the issue.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

But all of those except the Japanese/Chinese, the two sides are the same race.

 

[_dhj_]

But all of those except the Japanese/Chinese, the two sides are the same race.

By race I don't mean difference between asians, whites and blacks. I mean the racial groupings based on nations (as opposed to states). I also mentioned historical reasons, and I think in all of these cases it is because something happened at some points in history that made persons born of nationality A automatically enemies of persons born of nationality B. It is not because of cultural differences at all.

 

[littlewing69]

Australia should not strive to be a multi-cultural society, but rather a multi-heritage society.

If we really were to embrace multiculturalism in anything more than food and grog, we'd see some deviation from the Anglophonic, Christian/Post-Christian laws and morality which guides this nation.

We should accept all nationalities, creeds, colours etc, but we should be aiming for a degree of assimilation (nothing Orwellian) in regard to national identity, acceptance of western democracy, respect for freedom.

There is little point in becoming an Australia without Australians. Australians of all colours, creeds, and backgrounds.

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

Australia should not strive to be a multi-cultural society, but rather a multi-heritage society.

If we really were to embrace multiculturalism in anything more than food and grog, we'd see some deviation from the Anglophonic, Christian/Post-Christian laws and morality which guides this nation.

We should accept all nationalities, creeds, colours etc, but we should be aiming for a degree of assimilation (nothing Orwellian) in regard to national identity, acceptance of western democracy, respect for freedom.

There is little point in becoming an Australia without Australians. Australians of all colours, creeds, and backgrounds.

wow that seems perfect to me. That should be an official statement called, the creed of Australia.

 

[ihavenothing]

That kind of arse kissy sweet approach makes people sick

 

[frog12986]

Wrong. In all of your examples it's the antagonism between the two groups is racial or historical rather than cultural. It is not because one group's culture conflicts with another, but because one group has an inherent racial hatred of the other (due to historical antagonisms). Take Japanese and Chinese for example - both share confucian values (in fact alot of Japanese culture derived from chinese culture). Cultural differences is not the issue.

"Culture": The learned values, ideas knowledge, rules and customs shared by members of a collectivity.

The very fact that variation is derived through difference in belief and the like, obviously due isolation and a lack of uniformity in 'confuciansim'. Whether it was derived from Chinese culture is in itself irrelevant.

The point that there are differences and variations of beliefs, lifestyle and ideas indicates a difference in culture and the overall development of that particular culture as the derivative of the former... as I said before, the subjectivity of culture is part of the reason of the inability for multi-culturalism to progress any further..

 

[_dhj_]

"Culture": The learned values, ideas knowledge, rules and customs shared by members of a collectivity.

The very fact that variation is derived through difference in belief and the like, obviously due isolation and a lack of uniformity in 'confuciansim'. Whether it was derived from Chinese culture is in itself irrelevant.

The point that there are differences and variations of beliefs, lifestyle and ideas indicates a difference in culture and the overall development of that particular culture as the derivative of the former... as I said before, the subjectivity of culture is part of the reason of the inability for multi-culturalism to progress any further..

Sorry but what is your argument exactly? Are you saying that cultural difference is inherently wrong, or simply that it causes problems? If it is the latter I'm saying that the conflict and antagonism in society between the groups you've raised is caused mainly by historical and racial reasons, NOT cultural reasons. I didn't say that Chinese and Japanese had the same culture, merely implied that there are many similarities, but the antagonism between the two groups still seem irreconcilable. Often nations that hold historical grudges have similar cultures and values despite what they would like to believe, since those nations are likely to be geographical neighbours.

 

[frog12986]

Sorry but what is your argument exactly? Are you saying that cultural difference is inherently wrong, or simply that it causes problems? If it is the latter I'm saying that the conflict and antagonism in society between the groups you've raised is caused mainly by historical and racial reasons, NOT cultural reasons. I didn't say that Chinese and Japanese had the same culture, merely implied that there are many similarities, but the antagonism between the two groups still seem irreconcilable. Often nations that hold historical grudges have similar cultures and values despite what they would like to believe, since those nations are likely to be geographical neighbours.

To suggest that racial and historical causations exist exclusively without cultural influence is highly ignorant.... many historical events have been triggered by cultural difference and to identify the 'collective' without including cultural impacts is remiss of any individual analysing and form of historical event..

On the whole, conflict throughout history has occurred via discrepancies in beliefs and ideas on progress, and other key issues; beliefs and ideas intrinsic to the collectives 'culture' and 'world view'. At the end of the day, cultural difference exists due to isolation and a consensualist approach by those within that collective. This in itself increases the propensity for conflict, as history has shown, both across borders, and within societies themselves..

 

[gerhard]

give examples, not empty platitudes

 

[frog12986]

give examples, not empty platitudes

I did before in the earlier post...

- Serbs and Croats
- Jews and Palestinians
- Shiites and Sunnies (although Islamically centred)
- Greeks and Macedonians
- Japanese and Chinese
- Greeks and Persians
Even the events at Cronulla can be viewed as a derivative of cultural tension...We even witness the continual tension between the likes of Sydney United (Croatian) and the Bonnyrigg White Eagles (Serbs) in conveying the impact that culture has upon conflict and the like, even in a part of the world so far removed..

Now with each of these, it is not to say that culture was the main force behind the conflict, but that it was indeed a contributory factor; cultural beliefs formulated within the confines of each collective mentioned. Culture as with any difference in belief is a breeding pot for conflict, regardless of the extent to which it may directly contribute..

 

[_dhj_]

can you give convincing examples of specific cultural differences that have led to conflict between the groups you've mentioned, rather than simply list a few groups that have had historical conflicts and antagonisms. You keep talking about how important cultural differences are in contributing towards conflict, but afaik in most if not all the examples you've mentioned cultural differences are not major causes of conflict. My view is that it is the identification of individuals as members of specific group, rather than what the group stands for that causes the conflict. Tribalism (on the larger scale, nationalism) is the cause, not cultural differences. I acknowledge that you've conceeded that culture was not the main force but a "contributory factor", but if that is the case eliminating cultural differences (probably an impossible thing to do anyway) simply to reduce conflict does not sound like an appropriate way to deal with the problems.

 

[frog12986]

can you give convincing examples of specific cultural differences that have led to conflict between the groups you've mentioned, rather than simply list a few groups that have had historical conflicts and antagonisms. You keep talking about how important cultural differences are in contributing towards conflict, but afaik in most if not all the examples you've mentioned cultural differences are not major causes of conflict. My view is that it is the identification of individuals as members of specific group, rather than what the group stands for that causes the conflict. Tribalism (on the larger scale, nationalism) is the cause, not cultural differences. I acknowledge that you've conceeded that culture was not the main force but a "contributory factor", but if that is the case eliminating cultural differences (probably an impossible thing to do anyway) simply to reduce conflict does not sound like an appropriate way to deal with the problems.

I didn't actually say that we should eliminate cultural difference, but rather accept that as long as it exists, conflict will be a natural event within multicultural spheres..

For instance, if we take the Jew/Palestinian conflict. Although many other factors have played into the power struggle, the underlying causation stems from the variations in cultural belief about the 'ownership' or 'possession' of parts of the area concerned. The vast differences in belief systems has continued to add fuel to the fire, and underpin the continual conflict over the 'promised land' issue and the like......

You keep talking about historical conflicts and antagonisms, however ignoring the effect that differing belief systems (an integral part of culture) has had upon these antagonisms is remiss of you. As with the Israel issue, such systems tend to act as indirect forces as oppose to the main direct causal factor. Although it may appear as a power struggle for land, among other things, its roots exist within belief differences.

 

[banco55]

can you give convincing examples of specific cultural differences that have led to conflict between the groups you've mentioned, rather than simply list a few groups that have had historical conflicts and antagonisms. You keep talking about how important cultural differences are in contributing towards conflict, but afaik in most if not all the examples you've mentioned cultural differences are not major causes of conflict. My view is that it is the identification of individuals as members of specific group, rather than what the group stands for that causes the conflict. Tribalism (on the larger scale, nationalism) is the cause, not cultural differences. I acknowledge that you've conceeded that culture was not the main force but a "contributory factor", but if that is the case eliminating cultural differences (probably an impossible thing to do anyway) simply to reduce conflict does not sound like an appropriate way to deal with the problems.

Let's see off the top of my head:

Northern Ireland: catholic/protestant
Israel: arab nationality/culture/majority muslim versus jewish culture/religion
former yugoslavia: bosnian muslims/orthodox serbs/christian croatians
sudan christians versus religious nutcases
indonesia: christians versus muslims.
kurds just about everywhere: kurdish language/culture versus just about everyone.

How can you seperate out culture from tribalism anyway? They are symbiotic.

 

[robo-andie]

There is a difference between a societies religious culture, and their representative culture.

for example:
The representative culture of Ireland (the culture which we associate with them, and see, the one they uphold) does not circulate around either Catholic or Protestant cultures (their differing religious cultures).

Religion is apart of their culture, not their culture.

So now, if we can't seperate culture from tribalism, then how do we have all of these 'cultural differences' within nations. If those nations participate in tribalism, then basically, there is no cultural difference between each respective group within the nation, there is usually just a struggle for power, or a political disagreement.

 

[katie_tully]

I am so angry I got out of bed to comment on this.

I HATE CARDINAL GEORGE PELL. If any of you happened to read his comments regarding Amnesty International and their pro choice stance, you would know why I am angry. It's in the Opinion section of the Sunday Telegraph.

Angry. So angry. Gaaah.

 

[katie_tully]

I realise this is a thread about homosexuality or some such thing, but I cannot find the abortion thread.

 

[absolution*]

yeah someone should really cunt that fat baldy plonker

 

[Kwayera]

Can you post a link to the article? I'd also like to read what Pell has to say, the bastard.