Quoting Rolfen (Reply 47): I do - great food - Warm people - Cheap international phone calls - pot

Those are some nice generic qualities that you could claim for most groups.  

Harry

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 48): While Australian law might indeed never change to accommodate sharia law, efforts to achieve this objective are themselves disruptive and inconsistent with moving to another country and trying to live in harmony with the law and culture of that country.

I agree it would be disruptive if it was happening, but it's not. The first most Australians heard of any attempts to impose Shariah on Australia was when the treasurer mentioned it in a speech!

Quoting VHVXB (Reply 49): Thats what I am thinking as well after reading the Telegraph.

The Daily Terrorgraph has completely missed the mark - my god, yesterdays headline was unbelievable! Piers Ackerman performed as expected. But should we be surprised?

QFF

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 51): The Daily Terrorgraph has completely missed the mark - my god, yesterdays headline was unbelievable! Piers Ackerman performed as expected. But should we be surprised?

Well that is the job of the Australian media outlets is to blow everything out of proportion so there is not real surprise there. But what was said has added fuel to the fire. This type of problem only seems to be happening in NSW

Quoting QANTASforever (Thread starter): Now, that may be all well and good, but his singling out of certain sections of the Islamic community has prompted the head of the Prime Minister's Islamic Advisory Board to chastise the PM for comments he believes will lead to "Cronulla style riots" (significant and ugly race riots that happened at the end of 2005), and that the editorial and subsequent comments made by the PM will egender hatred.

I guess I don't understand why being asked to be Australian, if you're a new Australian immigrant, is being "hateful". That makes zero sense to me.

I think that there are people who think that Australia, or the U.S., for that matter, is some kind of international "UN zone", where everyone gets to be Australian (or American, as the case may be) and yet a perpetual foreigner. That's not the way it is. That's not what it means to belong.

If you want to be a consummate foreigner everywhere you are in my country, you're not a citizen. You're not even a permanent resident. You're not a true immigrant, but a visitor or guest.

If you want to live in our house, then do so under our rules.

That's just my opinion.

[Edited 2006-09-03 07:50:49]

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 7): I agree that there is something fundamentally wrong if you pro-actively refuse to learn English, adopt the basic cultural values of your new home, and create an environment in which the next generation can't assimilate. But I'd seriously like to know what percentage of Mexican migrants or US born children of Mexican migrants under the age of 15 can't speak English or don't like GI Joe and/or Barbie as the case may be.

The vast majority of legal immigrants, including legal Mexican immigrants, to America are good, decent, and respectable people. Many of them died for this country and are proud additions to our country. Many of them are harder-working than many native-born Americans. We should all hold them up with great pride as an essential part of the fundamental strengths of this country.

What I, along with the great majority of Americans, object to is only illegal immigration, since this denotes defiance of our laws and our traditions. We cannot accept the idea that anyone who wants to work is entitled to stay here. That's not the American way, and that's not remotely reasonable or logical, let alone acceptable.

It's not immigration that's the problem. Rather, the problem is with illegal immigration into our country -- a country that belongs to no foreigner, but to American citizens, permanent residents, and legal immigrants, alone.

There are hundreds of millions, even billions, who may want to come to America regardless of our rules. We cannot possibly afford to let them in without utterly destroying the very place in which they want to settle.

[Edited 2006-09-03 07:45:29]

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 42): Only muslims seem to be doing that. THEY are the problem, as politically incorrect as that is to say. The PM has no big need to go after Chinese or Indians, because they are peaceful.

Here, you just touch an important aspect. You speak of "Indians" forgetting that India has more than 100 mio Muslims and so is one of the largest Muslim countries. And it both in the tube-bombings in London and quite recently the problem were Indian-Pakistani people and NOT Arabs. And the Indonesian community includes Muslims and Christians and others, and in general does NOT mix with the Arab or Turkish "crowd". And finally, whenever what you write may have some truths, the "tradition" of "blowing yourself up" is of Asian origin (see actions of the NON-Muslim Tamil-Tigers) and may well spill back. So that to make such artificial division is rubbish, and the "Islamic/Muslim community" as well, as people of different ethnic groups usually do not even really share mosques. A statesman ought to think first and speak second. And should take ALL factors and ALL aspect duly into consideration, even if thinking may be a hurting and painful activity.

We should give due regard to science.

If, statistically, 95% or more of violent rapes are carried out by men against women, and not by women against men, should we be careful to keep admonitions against violent rape gender-neutral, and criticized for any statements that suggest that female rapists aren't equally prevalent?

Are "Take Back the Night" rallies horribly sexist because they are generally aimed against male attackers who spring their violence against women after dark?

Let's be realistic and understand the nature of the threat. In the 1940's, to be German or Japanese in the West was to invite close scrutiny. If one did not speak the language of an adopted country, one was especially suspect. Today, it so happens that the group under the microscope are many people from the Middle East, or other Muslims, and for similar reasons. Let's not be so quick to charge the government with "hate" merely because it desires that this group fully integrate into society and become, for that reason, less prone to suspicion.

I believe that most educated people in Australia and elsewhere in the West are quite open-minded about other cultures, even within their own countries. Advanced industrial countries are, by and large, part of a cosmopolitan civilization. Yet, in an age of terror where all our generosities and kindnesses are seen as -- and turned into -- weaknesses, we cannot afford the luxury of casting a blind eye to what could be used as a "fifth column" in our midst. It would be foolish to believe that nothing has changed since 9/11, or since the discovery that the West is being challenged by a dynamic and well-funded challenger whose convictions allow it to deploy true believers in suicide missions all over the world.

If we are Nero, and if the fiddle music doesn't stop, then in some sense, our fate is determined by the fires we fail, for that reason, to put out.

[Edited 2006-09-03 17:34:53]

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 55): You speak of "Indians" forgetting that India has more than 100 mio Muslims and so is one of the largest Muslim countries.

Which is why the problem is best described as Muslim in origin. The vast majority of Indians are not Muslim, and pose no threat at all, but I would look twice at one named "Muhamed" or something similar.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 55): And the Indonesian community includes Muslims and Christians and others, and in general does NOT mix with the Arab or Turkish "crowd".

But they did the Bali bombings. Muslims of western, african and other origins have been found to be terrorists. Again, the problem exists within the Muslim community, and most of the problem-muslims tend to be Arab, but not all.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 55): And finally, whenever what you write may have some truths, the "tradition" of "blowing yourself up" is of Asian origin (see actions of the NON-Muslim Tamil-Tigers) and may well spill back.

The Tamils are a problem in India and Sri Lanka. I don't think they are a big worry to the rest of the world, so I think we can ignore that.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 56): If, statistically, 95% or more of violent rapes are carried out by men against women, and not by women against men, should we be careful to keep admonitions against violent rape gender-neutral, and criticized for any statements that suggest than female rapists aren't equally prevalent?

      

If Muslims will admit that the problem is with their community, their culture, and their religion, they would be forced to actually do something about it. Bitching about profiling, blaming Israel, the West, Bush, is just a way of avoiding responsibility and avoiding having to do anything about the problem.

Good points, Cfalk. Proportionality, after all, is part of the essence of rationality.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 57): ou speak of "Indians" forgetting that India has more than 100 mio Muslims and so is one of the largest Muslim countries. -- Which is why the problem is best described as Muslim in origin.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 57): their culture,

-
quite to the contrary, it is NON-Muslim in origin. It is Asian in origin. And has nothing to do with Arab culture.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 57): The Tamils are a problem in India and Sri Lanka. I don't think they are a big worry to the rest of the world, so I think we can ignore that.

I would NOT be so careless about a rather serious aspect

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 59): quite to the contrary, it is NON-Muslim in origin. It is Asian in origin. And has nothing to do with Arab culture.

Asia is vast and has a wide range of people with cultures nothing in common. Even China, which many people think has one culture, is a mix of many different cultures. And of course Japanese and other oriental cultures are nothing like Indian and Arab cultures. So how can you mix all the cultures and just call them "Asian"?

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 55): And it both in the tube-bombings in London and quite recently the problem were Indian-Pakistani people and NOT Arabs.

Which is precisely what Cfalk is talking about. The problem here is the Muslim community. Those idiots who carried out those bombings were muslims...not hindus or christians or jews or anything...muslims...you simply have to accept the fact that the majority of terrorism today is being carried out by muslims.

And QFF..no I don't have any problem with people coming here in search of better lives, but hey they should at least make an attempt to integrate into this country. After all they are in a foreign land and must respect our laws and cultures.

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 60): After all they are in a foreign land and must respect our laws and cultures.

I agree that people should engage with their new country, but you need to remember that when they become Australians - this becomes their country too. It's no longer "foreign" and they have as much right to speak out about anything they wish just as we can. The individual merit of certain comments will be received by the Australian community on a case-by-case basis just as it is with any other public comment. It's the nature of immigration. We change them and sometimes they change us.

QFF

Quoting QANTASFOREVER (Reply 61): It's no longer "foreign" and they have as much right to speak out about anything they wish just as we can.

That's true only up to a point. After they become naturalized, they shouldn't violate their oath of naturalization by remaining foreign.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER (Reply 61): I agree that people should engage with their new country, but you need to remember that when they become Australians - this becomes their country too. It's no longer "foreign" and they have as much right to speak out about anything they wish just as we can. The individual merit of certain comments will be received by the Australian community on a case-by-case basis just as it is with any other public comment. It's the nature of immigration. We change them and sometimes they change us.

         Very well written. If everyone understands and embraces this perspective we wouldn't be having this debate at all. Our perspective of the world and experiences are much enriched by having people from other cultures living amongst us.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 62): That's true only up to a point. After they become naturalized, they shouldn't violate their oath of naturalization by remaining foreign.

Could you clarify what you mean by "remaining foreign"?

Does it mean that these "foreigners" should stop speaking their native languages at home, outside the home, and in business? Does it mean you propose banning sale of all "foreign" food (what would Aussies do without Thai food)? Does it mean you propose banning ethnic, "foreign" language press? Does it mean that they must conform to the majority religion (ie Christianity in Australia)? Does it mean that they should only be interested in local sports (ie AFL, league and cricket in Australia)?

Quoting HKGKaiTak (Reply 63): oes it mean that these "foreigners" should stop speaking their native languages at home, outside the home, and in business? Does it mean you propose banning sale of all "foreign" food (what would Aussies do without Thai food)? Does it mean you propose banning ethnic, "foreign" language press? Does it mean that they must conform to the majority religion (ie Christianity in Australia)? Does it mean that they should only be interested in local sports (ie AFL, league and cricket in Australia)?

No, of course not. It means only that they accept Australian customs and ways in the appropriate venues. They are, or should be, free to speak whatever language they want at home and in specific areas they wish to congregate. Their culinary culture enriches Australia, I feel certain. But I think that most people would, or should, aim for an assimilationist approach, in any case, in matters of law and politics.

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 60): And of course Japanese and other oriental cultures are nothing like Indian and Arab cultures. So how can you mix all the cultures and just call them "Asian"?

in the same way as people in places speak about "Muslim culture / Muslim community". There are Muslims in the Arab World, in Africa, in Turkey, Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia, Tatarstan, Azerbaijan, but also in Asian countries from Iran to China. This in reality neither is a common culture nor a common group. If you make a difference between Chinese and Japanese but NONE between a Sinkiang-Chinese and a Senegalese then you are strange.

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 60): were muslims...not hindus or christians or jews or anything...muslims...you simply have to accept the fact that the majority of terrorism today is being carried out by muslims.

by Muslims, which is true as you say, but to say it again, these Muslims are members of various "national" and ethnic groups. You may have wondered why the Brits for a while ignored the Pakistani problem. Simply because they underestimated the "overspill" effect from one "community" to another crowd. Mr Howard quite correctly sees a problem among "Muslim" groups but he dis-regards that people who right today NEVER would regard themselves as "Muslims" basically, might turn into extremism in a week. THEREFORE he ought to address the problem as a WHOLE, and that is the being of a frustrated class of young immigrants of "third-world-countries" in your country. Mr Howard of course is right to see that it is extremist Muslims who profit of this at present and NOT some Spanish-origin monks, but ought to realize that it might be Manichaens next time, if all them do NOT integrate. He revealed a dangerous lack of perspective and longer-term considerations. To put it in the words of the "Great Emperor" he just is one of those "petit marchands anglais" without perception of the total .

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 64): No, of course not. It means only that they accept Australian customs and ways in the appropriate venues.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 64): But I think that most people would, or should, aim for an assimilationist approach, in any case, in matters of law and politics.

Then most of the migrant community in Australia does this already.

But how do you classify Australian values? The problem is that populism and politics is beginning to hint that "Australian values" mean white, Christian values and multi-culturalism when it suits white, Christian people.

Quoting HKGKaiTak (Reply 63): Very well written. If everyone understands and embraces this perspective we wouldn't be having this debate at all. Our perspective of the world and experiences are much enriched by having people from other cultures living amongst us.

Exactly right and some people don't understand that.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 55): And it both in the tube-bombings in London and quite recently the problem were Indian-Pakistani people and NOT Arabs.

None of the London bombers were Indians. They were British Muslims of Pakistani descent, with at least one white convert as I recall. Several of them visited Pakistan, and are alleged to have attended Islamic terrorist training camps there. The same applies to the recent attempted plane bombings.

It's fashionable to lump all British Asians as one entity, but Indian-origin immigrants of any background collectively have both a far higher standard of documented academic and professional accomplishment, and a concommitant near absence of radicalisation of any kind, compared to those of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin. They cannot be treated alike. The radical British Muslim youth are almost entirely of Pakistani or Bangladeshi (former east Pakistan) origin.

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 60): And of course Japanese and other oriental cultures are nothing like Indian and Arab cultures.

Indian culture is similar to both oriental and middleastern culture; we straddle the two regions. Ethinically India may look distinct from the orient, but Buddhism in east Asia, and Hinduism in SE Asia, are descended from India. There's a lot in common, from cultural beliefs to food (rice-dominated), from both general knowledge, and my personal experience.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 57): The Tamils are a problem in India and Sri Lanka. I don't think they are a big worry to the rest of the world, so I think we can ignore that.

'The Tamils' are a community of people who speak a language by that name. They aren't a 'problem' in India. The Tamil Tigers are an extremist organization in Sri Lanka, who are fighting for a separate homeland in response to the majority Sinhala policies that exclude them. They have nothing to do with India or Hinduism, but are fighting for a homeland in Sri Lanka for their ethnic group.

Quoting HKGKaiTak (Reply 66): But how do you classify Australian values? The problem is that populism and politics is beginning to hint that "Australian values" mean white, Christian values and multi-culturalism when it suits white, Christian people.

Indeed what are Australian values these days? We seem to be more polarised and eurocentric than ever before. I remember the 90's and how Sydney (in particular) revelled in it's multiculturalism, especially in the lead up to the 2000 Olympics.

Australia has taken in people from accross the planet, rich, poor, poverty stricken and political asylum seekers. I will agree with John Howard on one thing and that it is not much to ask new Australians to learn the language and the culture.

With the current crisis in Lebanon our government proved that they were willing and able to get Australians (including dual national Lebanese) out of war torn Lebanon. And that was Lebanese of all persuasions - Muslim / Christian and probable Hezbolah members and supporters.

The TV showed muslim women arriving off aircraft yelling "thankyou Australia" - which I thought was crass but just shows the divides that are still there.

But what is Australian culture these days? John Howard has implemented the most draconian workplace reforms seen anywhere in the Western world. A fair go for all and that aussie work ethic is out the window with these new industrial relation laws.

I think we have lost Australian culture and have replaced it with xenophobia and the desire of a quick buck.

js

i don't understand it...how do cultures such as UK, USA and Australia claim to be FREE when they basically tell you what language to speak and how to integrate....integration happens naturally regardless, i think most people want foreigner to CONVERT, there's a huge difference and many confuse the two big time...

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 68): None of the London bombers were Indians. They were British Muslims of Pakistani descent,

yes, just as you here confirm, NONE of them of Arab origin !

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 68): They aren't a 'problem' in India. The Tamil Tigers are an extremist organization in Sri Lanka, who are fighting for a separate homeland in response to the majority Sinhala policies that exclude them.

And this is a different aspect. While it is clear that Tamil Nadu and the Tamils in general are no problem in India, my question rather is: Are there family-links or political links between the Tamils (people in general) on Sri Lanka and those in India ?
-
Beside the point that a federal structure along the idea of India (etc) might be a solution for SriLanka.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 72): Are there family-links or political links between the Tamils (people in general) on Sri Lanka and those in India ?

Sure there are plenty. Among both the extremists *and* the moderate Sri Lankan Tamil folk. They all came from India to work on the plantations. Their best known cricket player, one of the greatest bowlers in history, and a Tamil named Muttiah Muralitharan, is married to an Indian Tamil lady.

Radicalisation of Muslims in a non-Muslim environment is a reality. It is a completely different situation from SL, where Tamils were for decades, officially discriminated against in what is their own homeland for generations, leading to a civil war in 1983. There is no equivalent basis for claiming that just because there is a non-Muslim group who have committed suicide bombings, Muslims are not the only ones aggrieved as such - no western nation ever denies you public services for being a Muslim.

Extreme ghettoisation and radicalisation of this kind, and that too while living in prosperous western countries to which they immigrated within a generation or two ago, is primarily a phenomenon of people of Islamic persuasion. The only answer is for them to assimilate, so that their national identity supercedes their ethno-religious one - in any situation where the two compete, their identity as a citizen must be above that as a Muslim. That is the basis of the modern nation state.

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 70): i don't understand it...how do cultures such as UK, USA and Australia claim to be FREE when they basically tell you what language to speak and how to integrate

No one tell them what to speak. But many of them live in squalor and poverty because, guess why? Everyone else speaks English!

Harry

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 70): i don't understand it...how do cultures such as UK, USA and Australia claim to be FREE when they basically tell you what language to speak and how to integrate....integration happens naturally regardless, i think most people want foreigner to CONVERT, there's a huge difference and many confuse the two big time...

Well, the immigrant has made that decision for himself. By immigrating to a country, he has made the decision to adopt the customs of his new country. I think it's only fair to expect him to maintain that decision or, if he no longer likes his new country, petition to move back to the old.

All of this must be subject to reasonable limits. No one expects a 55-year-old man, who previously lived his entire life in a remote village in a Third World country, to start talking like a native Australian. But younger immigrants should at least make it a point to try to assimilate. Or else why are they in Australia?

Quoting JeepBoy (Reply 69): I think we have lost Australian culture and have replaced it with xenophobia and the desire of a quick buck.

This, if true, would be most regrettable.

Quoting HKGKaiTak (Reply 66): But how do you classify Australian values? The problem is that populism and politics is beginning to hint that "Australian values" mean white, Christian values and multi-culturalism when it suits white, Christian people.

I can't speak for Australia, I'm afraid, as I'm not Australian. But for Americans, there is such a thing as an American set for values and traditions that every immigrant should adopt in his public life. By the way, this includes, for the most part, the English language.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 75): But younger immigrants should at least make it a point to try to assimilate. Or else why are they in Australia?

What if the "Australians" don't want them to integrate? Nobody seems to have thought that maybe the migrants did try, but felt rejected by the white, Christian majority?

People seem to think any hijabs is a backward freakshow, and associate anyone with an Islamic background that way, so why would they take the time to understand their culture or, shock horror, make friends with people from the Muslim faith?

The politicians just make it worse by whipping up the populist hysteria by saying "Middle Eastern thugs" and "banning hijabs" etc etc etc, suggesting they are all troublemakers and people to avoid.

Yes I believe people should at least try to follow some of the values of the place they live in (there is a good Chinese saying about that), and that there are a lot of migrants who should do more. But their new community should do its bit to embrace them and make them feel welcome. That, I believe, is slowly being eroded in the era of "war on terrorism" and for political expediency.

Quoting HKGKaiTak (Reply 76): What if the "Australians" don't want them to integrate? Nobody seems to have thought that maybe the migrants did try, but felt rejected by the white, Christian majority?

That's a different story. If efforts are not made to integrate them, then that should be rectified.

But, the story of no immigrant group has been one of wines and roses. Jewish people, for example, were greatly discriminated against even in America. Over time, they came to be accepted here. The same with Italians and others. Today, no one gives a hoot that Alfonse D'Amato's background is Italian. And only the relative few anti-Semites out there would make hay of Sen. Lieberman's background.

I can only speak for America, not Australia. Here, we make an effort to integrate minorities. Look at President Bush's Cabinet, for example. The most powerful woman in America is Condoleezza Rice, a black woman who is our Secretary of State. The President's Cabinet includes two Asian-Americans (Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, who is also married to a powerful U.S. Senator from the Republican Party, and Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation and a Democrat). The leader of our forces in the Middle East, Gen. John Abizaid, head of the military's Central Command, which includes the entire Middle East and other areas of the globe, is Lebanese-American. Here in America, we believe in integration, although, of course, there do remain racists and other prejudiced individuals.

Nor is diversity limited to the Executive Branch. Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito are both of Italian heritage. Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. is an up-and-coming leader in the Democratic Party who happens to be black. A dynamic and forceful Congressman from the New Orleans area, often interviewed in the last year concerning the fate of his constituents, is from an East Indian background. U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell is of Native American extraction. A recent Governor of a northwestern state is of a Chinese background. And the current Governor of California came to us from Austria speaking almost no English and carrying little more than the clothes on his back and the change in his wallet. These are only a few of the non-"White Anglo-Saxon Protestants" who grace our national and regional political scenes.

And this doesn't even count the State of Hawaii, where diversity is virtually complete.

Again, I cannot speak for Australia. But, if a Lebanese-American, answerable only to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs, can command U.S. forces in the Middle East, surely Australians of a Middle Eastern background can achieve great integration -- with the help of all of those involved.

[Edited 2006-09-05 03:11:22]

Quoting Singaporegirl (Reply 21):

Quoting Singaporegirl (Reply 21): hear, hear. for eg, you should write to the singapore american school http://www.sas.edu.sg/ to make all the american students living in singapore to learn to speak either mandarin, malay or tamil. so far they only have mandarin as an "optional" foreign language.

I know I'm a bit late coming into this but Singaporegirl, English is one of the four official languages in Singapore. I was born and bred in Singapore and I have never had to speak a word of Chinese in Singapore ever since passing A Level Chinese in 1999. I can get by everywhere with only English. Even though I am ethnically part indian and part chinese, Mandarin to me is a foreign language and I speak no indian language. Considering that besides danger signs, everything else in Singapore is in English only,the politicians only speak in English, the working language is english and the medium of instruction in local schools is english, there is no pressing need for new immigrants to Singapore, or foreigners, to speak any other language to integrate.

But back to the topic at hand, I don't see a problem with asking immigrants to Australia or any other country to integrate. I have been in Australia for 2 periods of 4 months each, completing a post graduate degree and while it does not give me a full picture of Australian society, I have noticed immigrants from other asian and european backgrounds who speak not a word of English. (notably the chinese) I wonder how they got residency in Australia in the first place.

Of the Asian Australians I know (asian but born in Australia and speak like Australians) they say that to succeed as a minority, you got to work twice as hard and be twice as smart as the average white australian. It could possibly be true, and I'm sure this situation is not unique to Australia.

I know of a sizeable American IT firm (won't put the name here) that operates out of Sydney. The first boss they put in was American, the locals didn't like him and he left. THe second guy they put in was Indian, locals didn't like him and he left. Third guy was chinese national, locals didn't like him and he left. In the end they were forced to promote a young white Australian who was about 30 years old to be the CEO of the branch.

To the Australians here, would you agree there is a glass ceiling for non whites? (I'm sure glass ceilings exist everywhere though, and I doubt the CEO of SIA will be a non Singaporean anytime soon!) But to what extent is it prevalent throughout Australian society?

Another example I can think of is Optus, before it was bought out by Singapore Telecommunications. Before Singtel bought Optus, the company advertised itself as Cable and WIreless Optus and had a British Boss. Today, however, the company completely distances itself (branding and marketing wise) from its Singaporean parent (but I can assure you that the powers that be are controlling the strings and scripts from Singapore!) and just goes by "yes optus" with the singing lions and dancing penguins. The CEO of Optus is Australian (he reports to the Singtel Group CEO in Singapore) though the number two and number three people in the company are posted in from Singapore. Not a whole lot of Australians realise that Optus is a Singaporean company, though they know Vodafone is British.

The company didn't have an image problem under a British boss in the past. Say a Singaporean posted in from Singtel replaces the current Optus CEO Paul Anderson, do you think the company would suffer an image problem in Australia?

(Let's not get started with the americans in telstra and their image problem!)

From what I've read in this thread, and from what I've read about Australia's long-gone, and sometimes-forgotten, "White Australia" policy, I regret to say that not everything about Australia's apparent failure to integrate minorities can be easily explained by placing the blame on the newcomer.

There is much to admire about Australia. It is, by many accounts, a wonderful and advanced country, and it is a strong partner in the Western fight for freedom and security.

I am a bit troubled upon reading about what seem to be xenophobic tendencies on the part of some Australians, although I would quickly add that this xenophobia is probably little more than what is present in certain segments of the United States and other countries.

Some time ago, as I recall, there were reports of riots in some coastal communities of Australia that some have ascribed to racial tension. I believe that these were the Cronulla riots mentioned by the Prime Minister of Australia. Such riots were most unfortunate, and most undeserving of the best impulses of the Australian people.

To the extent that integration is difficult for newcomers to any nation, there is little that can be said for that except that the historical record is replete with similar experiences. However -- and this is quite important, as I see it -- it remains a national imperative for all peoples to continue to work with those whom they have welcomed to their shores, so that not only those immigrants involved, but the entire country, is strengthened.

Sadly, there is apparently in some realms an atavistic tendency to aim for "ethnic purity" or, at any rate, an insular familiarity and exclusivity that continues to stand in the way of practical progress. Need it be said that these things -- which, I think, remain real in even in the early years of the 21st Century -- give the enemies of the West every bit of ammunition they need with which to attack our "hypocrisy"? And, more importantly, need it be said that by alienating legal immigrants in the midst of Western democracies, the seeds of danger are nourished, and excuses are facilitated, by those whose resentment and hurt cannot be addressed other than through the auspices of our better nature?

There is a saying that bears remembering here: "What goes around, comes around."

If the Prime Minister's wise words are to have meaning, then everyone, it seems to me, whether in the minority or not, must heed the means to give them effect, for the good of all Australians, both old and new.

[Edited 2006-09-05 05:25:45]

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 73): The only answer is for them to assimilate, so that their national identity supercedes their ethno-religious one - in any situation where the two compete, their identity as a citizen must be above that as a Muslim. That is the basis of the modern nation state.

Thanks for the explanations about the Tamils. But this last paragraph is beside reality. There are some 30 mio Arabs in Western Europe, at least half of them now have the citizenship of the relevant European states, a very large share of them do not or not much speak Arabic, most are fully integrated locally. Only a tiny share believes in a Muslim identity, while most feel an Arab identity in a way. The bi-national and bi-cultural identity for most simply is reality. You may have noted that even those "outer-suburbs-Parisians" who rioted last year speak French and behave in the French way, so that even somewhat disadvantaged folks are heavily integrated.
-

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 75): he has made the decision to adopt the customs of his new country

negative! you're making that assumption for the person, people move for different reasons, they don't have to move for the reasons that you feel right for them....you don't have to adopt the customs of the country you move to...

i'd be ticked if non turks moved here and would want to go to the waterside and have raki and fish and do things that turks do, because they moved here, they can do whatever they want...that's just silly to assume that.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 75): Well, the immigrant has made that decision for himself. By immigrating to a country, he has made the decision to adopt the customs of his new country. I think it's only fair to expect him to maintain that decision or, if he no longer likes his new country, petition to move back to the old.

You ignore some facts of life :
A) many or most "immigrants" have no choice, and it does not matter whether they like the new country or not
B) "to move back to the old" is not viable for obvious reasons
C) immigrants carry their background with them, so that what is to be achieved is to "integrate" both cultures and to become bi-lingual and bi-cultural
D) many in a way DISlike both the "new" AND the "old" country and have nowhere else to go
E) bi-cultural people can be of most excellent service to BOTH countries in a variety of ways, if trying to be positive (trade/travel/culture/etc) .

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 81): negative! you're making that assumption for the person, people move for different reasons, they don't have to move for the reasons that you feel right for them....you don't have to adopt the customs of the country you move to...

Speaking for myself, I'm afraid I must say: I could not disagree more. Either you move to my country to adopt our lifestyle, or you don't come here, except to visit. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

This is America. If you come here intending to live here permanently, you must come here to become American. You don't come here treating this nation as some kind of lifeboat -- forever treating this land as merely your last refuge when your own nation rejects you.

If you do, we will treat you not as an immigrant, but as a refugee. Is that what a newcomer would want?

I will say this: America is under an obligation first and foremost to itself and to its own citizens and permanent residents. We certainly are under no obligation to defer to any and all comers who claim that this country owes them an obligation to change to fit their needs. If we do, then soon there will no longer be an America. And that is something that, to me, is totally, utterly unacceptable.

I would urge all Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, to preserve our nation by treating it as the precious thing it is: Not to be given away to any who lay claim upon it, disregarding our principles and our patriotism. Remember: America would not be America, without the Americanism that animates it, and gives it life.

Countless numbers have died for this country, and for it to be subsumed into a sea of foreigners, loyal only to their original country, spits upon and desecrates their memory.

This land belongs to all Americans. And no one else.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 82): You ignore some facts of life : A) many or most "immigrants" have no choice, and it does not matter whether they like the new country or not

But wouldn't it be their obligation to try to adapt? I would strongly urge that it is.

[Edited 2006-09-05 14:24:02]

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 83): You ignore some facts of life : A) many or most "immigrants" have no choice, and it does not matter whether they like the new country or not But wouldn't it be their obligation to try to adapt? I would strongly urge that it is.

-
in fact MOST of immigrants try their very best to do so. And most even do so quite successfully, that means to adapt. To adapt means to find the required compromise, but it does NOT mean to forget everything, to give up everything. It simply means to find the necessary compromises and to find the way through in the frame of a bi-cultural identity.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 84): in fact MOST of immigrants try their very best to do so. And most even do so quite successfully, that means to adapt. To adapt means to find the required compromise, but it does NOT mean to forget everything, to give up everything. It simply means to find the necessary compromises and to find the way through in the frame of a bi-cultural identity.

A "bi-cultural identity" can mean many things. But when it comes to loyalty and related matters, it should mean only one: That their sole loyalty is to their adopted country over all others, and that they do what they must to learn the culture, language, and customs of their adopted land.

All else is secondary by comparison, as I see it.

Difficulty does not excuse failure, unless it is true that the larger society actively oppresses and persecutes those who fail to conform, and as to this, I fail to see that it is quite the case.

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 81): you don't have to adopt the customs of the country you move to

Oh yes you do.. to a certain degree, and I don't mean those of a particular faith must renounce that but expecting the host country to adopt their customs is abhorrent, to me at least

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 82): D) many in a way DISlike both the "new" AND the "old" country and have nowhere else to go

And if you dislike the host country so much leave, find one that is more acceptable to you.

Leaving a country for all sorts of reasons, mostly unpleasant is no reason to try and turn the host country into a replica of the place you were so ready to leave.

I might add that the question of accepting refugees is itself already a most vexing one.

If a refugee does seek our shores, how can we reject him?

The answer, I fear, is that we already do: By way of example, the "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy pertaining to refugees from Cuba requires that those who escape Cuba who are encountered by U.S. forces at sea, even if within eyesight of American shores, must be returned to Cuba. Those who physically land upon American soil, by contrast, may be accorded a different, and more favorable, status. I leave to the reader the evaluation of the merits of this policy.

Nevertheless, it seems to be clear that our government has decided that not all who seek refuge can be given refuge, and that, implicitly, at some point, refugees may be repatriated to their countries of origin.

[Edited 2006-09-05 15:02:39]

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 80): The bi-national and bi-cultural identity for most simply is reality. You may have noted that even those "outer-suburbs-Parisians" who rioted last year speak French and behave in the French way, so that even somewhat disadvantaged folks are heavily integrated.

I am not suggesting that they should not feel Muslim or Arab, but that they should not put that above their identity as French or whatever. Not all countries do a good job of integrating everyone. Even the better ones have its problems. Why is the Banlieue example a counter-argument ? Maybe the French youth did everything required of them, and it was the French system at fault. That's not an excuse for immigrants to be less French, but a reason to fix the French system.

But radicalisation is NOT an option. The average Hindu or Sikh immigrant running a corner shop in London may face daily putdowns and the like, but he perseveres and builds up business quietly. He doesn't go home or to the local temple, find some inflammatory scriptures to read, and otherwise increasingly turn to radical aspects of religion. Why is this form of siege mentality so much the preserve of Muslim immigrants who willingly moved to western nations ?

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 84): To adapt means to find the required compromise, but it does NOT mean to forget everything, to give up everything. It simply means to find the necessary compromises and to find the way through in the frame of a bi-cultural identity.

But it DOES require you discard and forget anything that is incompatible with the culture of the host country. If, for instance, you think Sharia law is a good idea, you must not live in France or Australia.

National identity MUST take precedence over any other religious or cultural identity. For an Englishman of Pakistani extraction to say, "I will fight against the UK because they are at war with Islam and I am a muslim" is absolutely unacceptable. So is the insistance of Mexicans to have their kids educated in Spanish in public schools, or protesting for the return of Texas to Mexico.

It is not up to the host country to adapt to immigrants. It is up to the immigrant to adapt.

The idea that multiculturalism enriching society, well, that's true to a point, and it makes a nice, feel-good slogan. But it has its limits. Some cultures are simply incompatible with each other without some serious compromises being made and accepted on both side. If either side is unwilling to compromise on certain things, pushing two incompatible cultures together just leads to an increase in criminal behaviour.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 88): radicalisation is NOT an option

it is NOT regarded as an option by most. I mean, out of 30 mio. a few dozens may feel attracted by that. Back to the trouble a year ago in Paris. The young people in question, mostly people of African and of Arab origin, in many many ways showed to be very very very French. French people may not like this, but it is the truth. Few of the young people of Arab origin are fluent in Arabic, and few of them have any decent knowledge of the Arab World, their world indeed is France. I regret not to be in a position to say much about the Pakistanis in Britain, of whom I particularily know their excellent restaurants, but I am fairly sure, that any Pakistani will tell you something quite different from the impression transmitted by the media in these times.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 89): But it DOES require you discard and forget anything that is incompatible with the culture of the host country. If, for instance, you think Sharia law is a good idea, you must not live in France or Australia.

An interesting aspect. If I remember correctly, you for some time lived in the Romandie. It is amazing that Switzerland in general and some Romand cantons in particular accepted / accept some people who advocate the Sharia and who in their home countries with that would land up in rather serious problems. If you think that Sharia law is a good idea, you canNOT live in most Arab countries except the KSA, but if you are NOT Saudi, you have no chance to be there long-term. For Sharia lovers, Europe is the best thing on earth in reality. There are at least three publicly known people in Geneva now who in their Arab home-countries would see the end of their days outside prison for quite a while.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 91): For Sharia lovers, Europe is the best thing on earth in reality.

And that is a mistake on the part of European countries (and many others, including the USA). These people should be deported, if they can be identified. Allowing in elements who are intolerant of the host culture is self-destructive.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 92): These people should be deported, if they can be identified.

They not only can be identified, they are publicy KNOWN and were/are reported about in Swiss TV. In case of the USA it is even worse as the USA for many years harboured people who were directly involved in the assassination of President Anwar es-Sadat, and the USA turned down extradition requests of Hosni Mubarak. Western countries in the 1980ies and 90ies were FAR too lenient about these things. Tragic is that it needed Usama BinLadn and 3000 people to die in order to alert the West. That this "alertment" brought shit upon Arabs in the West is another matter.

Quoting Docpepz (Reply 78): English is one of the four official languages in Singapore.

Quoting Docpepz (Reply 78): onsidering that besides danger signs, everything else in Singapore is in English only,the politicians only speak in English, the working language is english and the medium of instruction in local schools is english

of course i am aware of that lol. but the thing is it is our responsibility to make sure that our 'asian' heritage (i am eurasian btw, half chinese, half english canadian) is being passed on to the next generations. i know many singaporeans who do not see the need the speak any other asian language(s), both at home nor in public, and i can pretty much bet the farm that they're not going to teach their kids any asian language either. if we all do that, within 100 years singapore will be an all english speaking country. we might have signs in various languages, but no one would understand any of them. i think it is important for us to preserve our asian heritage, as well as our colonial heritage.

ps: our pms from lee 1, goh, and lee 2 can speak english, mandarin and malay fluently and i think that is a great thing.

Quoting Singaporegirl (Reply 94): can speak english, mandarin and malay

in view of the difference between the three languages this is admirable, BUT is it really necessary ? does it bring them a REAL advantage ? Or isn't English sufficient to operate in and out of Singapore both in business and in politics. In contact with business people from Singapore I learnt that you have minorities of Malay, Indian/Pakistani, Arab, Vietnamese, Burmese and Thai origin, so that to learn all languages in evidence you ought to be a linguist in command of English, Malay, Thai, Burmese, Vietnamese, Lao, Cambodian, Hindhi, Tamil, Pashtun, Sindh, Punjab, Urdhu, Farsi and Arabic, which looks a bit too much for most ?!

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 95): in view of the difference between the three languages this is admirable, BUT is it really necessary ?

my husband is an american. ever since he migrated to singapore, he learned to speak mandarin and actually it helped him to deal with his chinese (as in mainland china, he goes to pvg for business at least once a month) clientele. he speaks some malay as well. on this thread somewhere i stated that we go to bali very frequently as we have a holiday villa there. being able to speak malay/bahasa, def helps him to get around on the island, and minimizes being haggled by local vendors. you also have to realize eventhough everyone speaks english in singapore, singapore is a very small country. sporadically you might want to leave the island and i believe that it would help if you could speak other languages.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 87): If a refugee does seek our shores, how can we reject him?

[sarcasm] You declare your whole country "off limits" to refugees, or just don't allow them on-shore (it's been exactly 5 years since the disgraceful Tampa saga), or you simply take them to be "processed" on a remote island which is part of Australia but, for refugees, it isn't part of Australia ... simple really.

One of the great John Howard legacies ... [/sarcasm]

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 89): National identity MUST take precedence over any other religious or cultural identity.

Quite right, but ...

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 90): The young people in question, mostly people of African and of Arab origin, in many many ways showed to be very very very French. French people may not like this, but it is the truth. Few of the young people of Arab origin are fluent in Arabic, and few of them have any decent knowledge of the Arab World, their world indeed is France.

It's unfortunate that people who already live there does not fully embrace another culture. Increasingly for "coloured" immigrants in Australia, you can be born in Australia and have gone nowhere else in your life, but people still refer to you as though you aren't Australian - Peter Debnam's call about "Middle Eastern thugs" is just one of many examples.

And of course, lest migrants actually become successful and prominent as a minority group, idiot politicians call it as "being swamped by Asians" - it may not have come from Johnny Howard's mouth but that phrase has certainly shaped Australian politics for the last decade.

I'm Hong Kong-born and raised, and have chosen not to follow the majority in not adopting an "Anglo" name. I do speak English with a very heavy Australian accent.

The first question people ask on meeting me (or, working in a call centre, hearing my name) is, "Where are you from?" The answer of "Sydney" often elicits a shocked expression, followed mostly by an abrupt (and sometimes rude) "I mean, where are you originally from or where did your parents come from?". You'd find people who asks these questions are usually white, Christian people.

It's a scenario that's played out to most "coloured" migrants many times over a year (worse if you chose to wear "different" clothing or accessories), and raises a giant question over whether people here actually believe in integration themselves or whether they have already so prejudiced against migrants / second generation migrants.

Which then leads to this phenomenon:

Quoting Docpepz (Reply 78): Of the Asian Australians I know (asian but born in Australia and speak like Australians) they say that to succeed as a minority, you got to work twice as hard and be twice as smart as the average white australian. It could possibly be true, and I'm sure this situation is not unique to Australia.

It is very true indeed. At least it's what's been drummed into my head by my parents ever since we migrated to Australia 15 years ago. I believe that as an employer, you won't employ a migrant (say, Mohammed Ibrahim) if he/she is of the same qualifications and experiences as a "local" (say, Trevor James). It's unfortunate but that's a fact of life.

This explains why migrants and their second generation value education and hard work so highly - and why over time so many migrants have found themselves into higher office in politics, business, research, education etc.

I attended a postgraduate information evening last night and two-thirds of the attendees has an Asian background. Perhaps this is why people say that Australian unis are "90% Asian", but of course they don't see that the vast majority of these are locals too ... and oh, white, Christian Australians don't like that, they see it as "getting swamped by Asians" ... and the cycle continues ...

Quoting QANTASforever (Thread starter): Which is why the problem is best described as Muslim in origin. The vast majority of Indians are not Muslim, and pose no threat at all, but I would look twice at one named "Muhamed" or something similar

Likewise, should I look twice at one named "Tony", "Bush" etc for the terrorism they have committed in Iraq etc.

Quoting QANTASforever (Thread starter): Which is precisely what Cfalk is talking about. The problem here is the Muslim community. Those idiots who carried out those bombings were muslims...not hindus or christians or jews or anything...muslims...you simply have to accept the fact that the majority of terrorism today is being carried out by muslims

Can someone define what terrorism is ? Is it only bombings carried out by muslims or also murder of an innocent in cold blood that causes panic ??

Quoting HKA (Reply 98): Can someone define what terrorism is ? Is it only bombings carried out by muslims or also murder of an innocent in cold blood that causes panic ??

If the target itself is innocent civilians - if the whole purpose of the attack is to cause the maximum carnage among non-military personel, that is terrorism.