Powered byWebtrack Logo


Not all cultures are good

"WHEN I hear the word culture, I reach for my pistol." Whether Hermann Goering or someone else spoke those words is immaterial; the sentiment is clear. I feel the same when I hear the word multicultural. By now the language police will have concluded that I am a rabid racist not fit to mix in polite society. It is the standard epithet hurled at those who question multiculturalism. How has it come to this?

I became involved in politics almost 50 years ago with the prime motivation of fighting racism. However, I am aghast at the way multicultural advocates have taken control of the race debate by denouncing as racist anyone who disagrees with their view of the future of Australian society.

At this point it may be apposite if I detail my family's ethnic mix. It includes Polish and Lithuanian Jews via South Africa, Celts from Scotland and Ireland, a handful of Thais and the very best British bloodstock.

Born in Griffith in 1935, by the time I was five World War II was well under way. At the time Australia was 97.5 per cent Anglo-Celtic and Christian. Those sectarian differences that did exist then were between Catholics and Protestants, many of whom were not far removed from the battles for Irish independence. As a small Jewish boy I wasn't a threat; more of an oddity, really.

I first experienced anti-Semitism when sent to a Sydney boarding school to study for my bar mitzvah. On my first day at school I was involved in three fights with boys who had greeted me with the welcoming words, "You dirty f..king Jew." Hence my lifetime commitment to fight prejudice.

Sure, there were further incidents, often at the most unexpected times, but I remain convinced that Australia is one of the least racist countries.

It is not in the least surprising nonetheless that when Australia, under Ben Chifley, abandoned its practice of only seeking migrants from Britain, and turned to Europe there was some apprehension about how it would work. It was, as we know, a great success. First came the Italians, Poles, Germans, Balts, Dutch and others, followed by those from wherever there was suffering. Millions sought safe haven from wars, oppression, famine or poverty. They came to a country that offered the freedoms they had been denied, provided them with the opportunity to earn a decent living and enabled them to rear a family free from the threat of violence.

Each new wave of migrants followed the same pattern. Arriving with little, they gravitated to areas with cheap accommodation among people who spoke the same language, ate the same food, worshipped at the same church and were familiar with the same culture. Older Australians had doubts about these cultural "ghettoes" but in time they not only got used to them but grew to cherish them. Eventually there was hardly a nationality, religion, race or creed that didn't have its own cultural identity and community in Australia. With a few exceptions the integration was seamless and tensions were rare. Adult immigrants found it hardest to assimilate into the local community. Differences became less obvious with each passing generation. Each group made their contribution towards a new, constantly changing Australian culture.

So why, I hear you ask, do I bridle at the word multiculturalism? We are a multiracial society and a harmonious one. What I object to is the idea promoted by the multicultural lobby that not only should we be a society of a hundred cultures but it is the government's duty, nay obligation, to see that we remain permanently culturally divided. If some groups wish to remain separate from mainstream Australia, then that is their choice, but they should not expect governments to aid and abet those divisions.

Governments have a responsibility to assist new arrivals to settle in by helping them to find work, learn English, obtain housing and, if necessary, provide welfare. They should not help create the society from whence they escaped.

In return, migrants have a responsibility to learn about Australia's history and culture, including indigenous Australia and those of Anglo-Celtic origin, which was the dominant culture for 150 years.

Strangely, it is the Anglo-Celtic culture that is continually denigrated. No culture is perfect but few can match the British tradition of equality before the law, respect for minority views, freedom of speech and association, political and civil rights and above all, democracy. The word that best fits that heritage is "tolerance". Oddly, those most critical of that culture often come from the most oppressive and repulsive regimes, those ruled by feudal monarchies, military and theocratic dictatorships and one-party states.

The idea that all cultures are equally good is arrant nonsense. A glance at Freedom House's annual rankings of freedom will attest to that. Australia ranks among the very best.

To those who believe it is the government's responsibility to re-create the culture from whence they have escaped, I suggest they consider other options. Ours is a multiracial and tolerant society, and our culture should be a gradually evolving one, free from government interference and guidance. Let it remain so.

# reads: 2289

Original piece is,25197,25957852-7583,00.html

Printable version

Tell us what you think

As a matter of fact, according to demographic stats alone...Europe can look forward to being an Islamic caliphate within fifty years. Now there"s something to ponder!

Posted by Ronit on 2009-08-25 22:25:25 GMT

Peter, it is important to distinguish between the benign superficial aspects of multiculturalism, such as interesting exotic foods and "cosmopolitan" restaurants etc, and the very basic fundamental aspects of approaches to civic society, democracy and obeying the laws of the host country. Australia was happily spoilt by waves of early immigration by Jews, Europeans, and even later Asians, who were all leaving murderous repressive regimes, and who cherished the freedoms and democracy here based on the Judeo-Christian system, no matter what their backgrounds. This was the same in many other Western countries as well. While these immigrants were happy to change the breads and cuisine here, for the better, they did not aim to change the political system which gave them their religious and other freedoms. It is a different story with Islam, originating in the Arab world, which is a competing political system to modern democracies, and which for 1400 years has been trying to impose itself in the most violent, absolutist and uncompromising way. It has not allowed for any evolution and development, and is stuck in the 7th century. All clerics/imams (apart from 1-2 oddities) are Islamists, by definition, as they teach from extremist texts, and they have a huge sway on their large populations worldwide to instill hatred and violence. It is wishful thinking indeed to assume that they will react like earlier waves of immigrants who came eager for democracy, or that they will suddenly change and give up their Islamic religio/political system. One cannot judge this based on a few moderates who are half-hearted Muslims and turn their backs on their teachings. They do not set the political overwhelming agenda. If Muslim immigrants worldwide respected and obeyed the laws of the land in Western democratic countries, the threat of organised global terrorism would be almost nil. Alas, instead, almost all global terrorism is Islamic, and that won"t change until Islam is changed at its very core, which won"t happen anytime soon.

Posted by MT on 2009-08-22 14:48:52 GMT

An important thing is that the minority cultures influence the majority. Remember the food we were expected to eat in the 1950"s? And the total lack of life in the street, or the pub culture based solely on beer? The cafe, the food, even the people have changed. I spent eight years in the UK and Europe and was amazed on my return to see how animated the people had become. Melbourne has been transformed into a lively city. We are no longer a British backwater with a cultural cringe. As a several generations Jewish Australian my family no longer has to pretend we are British, we can wear our Jewish culture with pride and our identification with Israel. Not that we ever suffered antisemitism though I know it existed. I am not overworried about the ghettos, I think that they will dissapear in time, as long as these other cultures are incuded, that surely is what multiculturalism is about. I prefer the term cosmopolitan.

Posted by Peter on 2009-08-21 04:27:54 GMT

I agree with Barry Cohen"s thinking. The dangers of separate "cantons" where people do not assimilate and cling only to their "own ways" are demonstrated daily in many countries. Keeping traditions does not mean isolation from the larger communities. It is only when a new group becomes "one of the boys" that all flourish safely.

Posted by Roberta E. Dzubow on 2009-08-21 02:10:58 GMT