The concept of multiculturalism has never deeply resonated with the "Australian way of life," despite the lack of significant popular pushback against the idea. Australians, as indicated by various polls, generally describe themselves as patriotic and appreciate when individuals express pride in their heritage. This sentiment is exemplified by figures like former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who openly embraced his religious background, and notable public figures from diverse ethnic backgrounds, such as the recently elected Australian federal MP of Vietnamese heritage.
However, identity politics remains largely unpopular among Australians. This was evident when Morrison's attempt to create a civil rights exception for religious schools to discriminate against gay students faced substantial opposition, even within his own party. Similarly, identity politics from the left was rejected in the recent referendum, highlighting a broad aversion to divisive identity-based narratives.
In contrast to Australia, American elites have not publicly embraced the label of multiculturalism as fervently as their Australian counterparts. Yet, the reality on the ground in the United States is markedly different, with a long-standing tradition of hyphenated identities such as African-American or Italian-American. This practice has never gained traction in Australia, where the notion of a unified national identity prevails. In the U.S., advocating for the dissolution of hyphenated identities to foster a united America is often perceived as a far-right stance, whereas in Australia, it is more aligned with mainstream opinion.
Furthermore, the United Kingdom's multicultural fabric is deeply ingrained in its history as a union of English, Scottish, Welsh, and to some extent, Irish cultures, each with distinct languages and traditions. J.R.R. Tolkien, for instance, was critical of the idea of Britishness, viewing it as a threat to local indigenous cultures. Thus, the shift from Britishness to a broader multicultural identity may not be as profound as it is often portrayed.
In essence, while multiculturalism as a concept has been embraced by elites in various countries, its practical manifestation and acceptance vary significantly across different cultural and political landscapes.
I get that you like to clown on Australia for having a weak national character but I don't see the appeal you find in the Arab monarchies. Most of their natives are bunch of useless cousin fucking, welfare queens. The Crown Price of Saudi Arabia - MBS - is considered to be this great man of history even though his first ever job was as a defence minister who lost a war...to Yemen...with USA backing. The Russians have tolerated the most brutal dictators in history but they would have never tolerated a loser like MBS.
How exactly? Their GDP per capita has been stagnant for 40 years. Saudi Arabia has been in budget deficit for almost ten years straight (except for the brief price spike after COVID).
Ticks many boxes in my 8th decade, especially the tragic obsession with the past by the "indigenous" identity, bearing in mind the last authentic Aborigines passed by in the 1960s somewhere in WA? So all of us here are now descendants of hunter-gatherer forebears.
There's a 3/10 ABC show right now on the "1970s Unofficial History" which is far more about preoccupations of today's anxious progressives than about then.
But it did remind yet again of precisely what's wrong with the whole indigenous project in Australia when moving on to the later 1970s we learned of the sudden post 1975 wave [c100,000?] of Vietnam refugees, courtesy of the USA's gross foreign policy misjudgment, and I thought, Bill, last I looked this cohort has adapted to, "assimilated" more or less successfully in Australia, despite all being suddenly wrenched from their homeland in violent circumstances and dumped far away,
Yet life outcomes for many / most "indigenous" people here remain chronically troubling despite yes now having title to over half the landmass.
The obsession with the past is poisonous and grossly irresponsible when foisted on the rearing of children, leaving them trapped, ill equipped to engage life now and the future.
The beauty of a true full franchised democracy is that ALL identities are equal before democratically resolved rules, notwithstanding some loud argument in that process.
Our primary loyalty should be to fellow humanity not some precious identity we think deserves selfish advantage.
For millennia, humans have used origin stories to bring people together through a shared identity. Whether for companies, charities, sporting teams, or tribes, origin stories matter. For nations—arguably the second most powerful societal bond after family (just edging out football teams)—they matter even more.
Australia’s problem is that its origin story, as originally constructed, was a lie. When that was exposed, our key institutions lacked the credibility / confidence to replace it. And as always, the vacuum was filled. This is despite the fact that Australia’s true origin story is nothing short of miraculous—not in spite of, but because of, the bloodiness and brutality that stains it.
I hope my grandchildren are told the incredible story of a vast continent, cut off from the world as the ice thawed 10,000 years ago, stumbled upon by accident, and defying its past as a continental-sized prison to become one of the most diverse, peaceful & prosperous democracies in human history. From decades of Frontier Wars against brave and often victorious native resistance, to the shameful treatment of their descendants, through the repeal of White Australia and the (relatively recent) arrival of migrants from every corner of the planet, Australia has an origin story up there with any.
I just wish we had the confidence to tell it as it is—miracles, warts and all.
There’s hardly a more important single issue for this nation today – in troubled times when front foot rogue autocracies distract coping with humanity stressing the planetary environment - than agreeing on a national mojo, to find broad agreement on a meaningful collective mission statement.
It should look to the future, together, addressing the interests of any and all future Australians, whether born or travelled here.
It’s obviously appropriate the long history of the continent’s indigenous peoples before and after British-led settlement be properly acknowledged in all its complexity, including the violence, but not that this identity construct now cornerstone the nation’s collective purpose going forward [let alone its identifying adherents, however credentialed, thereby being accorded official status and attendant privileges] given the identity is now wholly ancestral, applies to less than 4% of the population, and is ever diluted as offshore migrants keep arriving in significant numbers.
NZ and Canada are presumably having similar conversations to Australia on this important matter.
So what elements might comprise a national ambition statement?
First it should highlight the heterodox origins of its peoples, the many ethnic inputs, both indigenous and imported [perhaps explicitly citing these two groups], bearing in mind the indigenous group itself - across a span of near 50,000 years - will presumably comprise many ancestral sub-groups, including multiple instances of maritime migration from the north.
Second, especially for such a “multicultural” population, it should acknowledge the nation’s democratic political model. Yes it was exported from Britain but as the first ever full-franchise, popular participatory, identity-blind political model in humanity’s history [notwithstanding inherent chronic challenges in its implementation] it is not British but belongs to everyone, like Newtons Laws.
Under this historically radical model all “identities” [individuals and groups by race / ethnicity / nation / religion / gender etc] are deemed equal before democratically resolved rules.
Democracy is nothing less than of humanity’s 3rd revolution in the millennia of warming since the last ice age, after farming and literate urbanisation.
However any national democracy like Australia’s might collectively, democratically agree to appropriate official recognition of some identities deemed historically important enough to do so. But all identities will be free to express themselves privately and publicly, within the overall democratic framework.
Third, since this statement will help advertise a democratic Australia internationally it might include an undertaking to treat other sympathetic nations with according respect.
Fourth, it should express some collective aspirational goal, like working hard together to make the democratic model succeed here.
Mulling further, there is hardly a less important single issue for this country, this nation, than achieving broad agreement on its collective guiding mission statement.
It seems wholly appropriate that the long history of the continent’s indigenous peoples before and after British-led settlement be properly acknowledged in all its complexity, including the violence, but not that this identity construct now cornerstone the nation’s collective purpose going forward - its identifying adherents accorded official privilege - given the identity is now wholly ancestral and applies to lees than 4% of the population, and as migrants keep arriving in significant numbers every year.
This approach is arguably in the interest of any and all new Australians, whether born or travelled here.
Like you I’m just amazed at this constant fantastical mythologising of all things Aboriginal. It seems so out of character, a graft from America as you somewhat imply. Australians wringing their hands about it should nonetheless ask if they too participated in the forgetting of our past into which these kind of superstitions can easily move and claim some spiritual depth which we feel we have lost.
Multiculturalism has a glaring defect that it causes the population of the host country to “believe” that all the shared cultures are equal. Be they from Scotland , Argentina, or certain middle eastern countries that believe in female genital mutilation and honour killing.
But the host nation isn’t resilient enough to stamp which practices are acceptable or not. Possibly because multiculturalism is promoted via tasty food
The concept of multiculturalism has never deeply resonated with the "Australian way of life," despite the lack of significant popular pushback against the idea. Australians, as indicated by various polls, generally describe themselves as patriotic and appreciate when individuals express pride in their heritage. This sentiment is exemplified by figures like former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who openly embraced his religious background, and notable public figures from diverse ethnic backgrounds, such as the recently elected Australian federal MP of Vietnamese heritage.
However, identity politics remains largely unpopular among Australians. This was evident when Morrison's attempt to create a civil rights exception for religious schools to discriminate against gay students faced substantial opposition, even within his own party. Similarly, identity politics from the left was rejected in the recent referendum, highlighting a broad aversion to divisive identity-based narratives.
In contrast to Australia, American elites have not publicly embraced the label of multiculturalism as fervently as their Australian counterparts. Yet, the reality on the ground in the United States is markedly different, with a long-standing tradition of hyphenated identities such as African-American or Italian-American. This practice has never gained traction in Australia, where the notion of a unified national identity prevails. In the U.S., advocating for the dissolution of hyphenated identities to foster a united America is often perceived as a far-right stance, whereas in Australia, it is more aligned with mainstream opinion.
Furthermore, the United Kingdom's multicultural fabric is deeply ingrained in its history as a union of English, Scottish, Welsh, and to some extent, Irish cultures, each with distinct languages and traditions. J.R.R. Tolkien, for instance, was critical of the idea of Britishness, viewing it as a threat to local indigenous cultures. Thus, the shift from Britishness to a broader multicultural identity may not be as profound as it is often portrayed.
In essence, while multiculturalism as a concept has been embraced by elites in various countries, its practical manifestation and acceptance vary significantly across different cultural and political landscapes.
I get that you like to clown on Australia for having a weak national character but I don't see the appeal you find in the Arab monarchies. Most of their natives are bunch of useless cousin fucking, welfare queens. The Crown Price of Saudi Arabia - MBS - is considered to be this great man of history even though his first ever job was as a defence minister who lost a war...to Yemen...with USA backing. The Russians have tolerated the most brutal dictators in history but they would have never tolerated a loser like MBS.
I think the Gulf Arabs have surprised on the upside over the last two decades
How exactly? Their GDP per capita has been stagnant for 40 years. Saudi Arabia has been in budget deficit for almost ten years straight (except for the brief price spike after COVID).
Divine geological accident?!
And a generally quiet location.
This is gold.
Ticks many boxes in my 8th decade, especially the tragic obsession with the past by the "indigenous" identity, bearing in mind the last authentic Aborigines passed by in the 1960s somewhere in WA? So all of us here are now descendants of hunter-gatherer forebears.
There's a 3/10 ABC show right now on the "1970s Unofficial History" which is far more about preoccupations of today's anxious progressives than about then.
But it did remind yet again of precisely what's wrong with the whole indigenous project in Australia when moving on to the later 1970s we learned of the sudden post 1975 wave [c100,000?] of Vietnam refugees, courtesy of the USA's gross foreign policy misjudgment, and I thought, Bill, last I looked this cohort has adapted to, "assimilated" more or less successfully in Australia, despite all being suddenly wrenched from their homeland in violent circumstances and dumped far away,
Yet life outcomes for many / most "indigenous" people here remain chronically troubling despite yes now having title to over half the landmass.
The obsession with the past is poisonous and grossly irresponsible when foisted on the rearing of children, leaving them trapped, ill equipped to engage life now and the future.
The beauty of a true full franchised democracy is that ALL identities are equal before democratically resolved rules, notwithstanding some loud argument in that process.
Our primary loyalty should be to fellow humanity not some precious identity we think deserves selfish advantage.
"I've seen things you wouldn't believe."
So have I.
For millennia, humans have used origin stories to bring people together through a shared identity. Whether for companies, charities, sporting teams, or tribes, origin stories matter. For nations—arguably the second most powerful societal bond after family (just edging out football teams)—they matter even more.
Australia’s problem is that its origin story, as originally constructed, was a lie. When that was exposed, our key institutions lacked the credibility / confidence to replace it. And as always, the vacuum was filled. This is despite the fact that Australia’s true origin story is nothing short of miraculous—not in spite of, but because of, the bloodiness and brutality that stains it.
I hope my grandchildren are told the incredible story of a vast continent, cut off from the world as the ice thawed 10,000 years ago, stumbled upon by accident, and defying its past as a continental-sized prison to become one of the most diverse, peaceful & prosperous democracies in human history. From decades of Frontier Wars against brave and often victorious native resistance, to the shameful treatment of their descendants, through the repeal of White Australia and the (relatively recent) arrival of migrants from every corner of the planet, Australia has an origin story up there with any.
I just wish we had the confidence to tell it as it is—miracles, warts and all.
We've turned away from the first 150 years of our history, which is incredibly rich and fascinating - often very dark but also inspiring
I think reclaiming part of that Anglo centrism is likely important to our cultural sense of self
Totally!
It's where "democracy" came from, the 3rd revolution since the Last Glacial Maximum.
But its not "British" democracy it's everyone's.
Like Kepler's Laws.
And fell running.
Agree Misha - so many incredible (and complex) stories - but unfortunately none of us are telling or hearing them.
Australia – seeking agreement on a national mojo?
There’s hardly a more important single issue for this nation today – in troubled times when front foot rogue autocracies distract coping with humanity stressing the planetary environment - than agreeing on a national mojo, to find broad agreement on a meaningful collective mission statement.
It should look to the future, together, addressing the interests of any and all future Australians, whether born or travelled here.
It’s obviously appropriate the long history of the continent’s indigenous peoples before and after British-led settlement be properly acknowledged in all its complexity, including the violence, but not that this identity construct now cornerstone the nation’s collective purpose going forward [let alone its identifying adherents, however credentialed, thereby being accorded official status and attendant privileges] given the identity is now wholly ancestral, applies to less than 4% of the population, and is ever diluted as offshore migrants keep arriving in significant numbers.
NZ and Canada are presumably having similar conversations to Australia on this important matter.
So what elements might comprise a national ambition statement?
First it should highlight the heterodox origins of its peoples, the many ethnic inputs, both indigenous and imported [perhaps explicitly citing these two groups], bearing in mind the indigenous group itself - across a span of near 50,000 years - will presumably comprise many ancestral sub-groups, including multiple instances of maritime migration from the north.
Second, especially for such a “multicultural” population, it should acknowledge the nation’s democratic political model. Yes it was exported from Britain but as the first ever full-franchise, popular participatory, identity-blind political model in humanity’s history [notwithstanding inherent chronic challenges in its implementation] it is not British but belongs to everyone, like Newtons Laws.
Under this historically radical model all “identities” [individuals and groups by race / ethnicity / nation / religion / gender etc] are deemed equal before democratically resolved rules.
Democracy is nothing less than of humanity’s 3rd revolution in the millennia of warming since the last ice age, after farming and literate urbanisation.
However any national democracy like Australia’s might collectively, democratically agree to appropriate official recognition of some identities deemed historically important enough to do so. But all identities will be free to express themselves privately and publicly, within the overall democratic framework.
Third, since this statement will help advertise a democratic Australia internationally it might include an undertaking to treat other sympathetic nations with according respect.
Fourth, it should express some collective aspirational goal, like working hard together to make the democratic model succeed here.
Hello, someone at the door.
More important!
Mulling further, there is hardly a less important single issue for this country, this nation, than achieving broad agreement on its collective guiding mission statement.
It seems wholly appropriate that the long history of the continent’s indigenous peoples before and after British-led settlement be properly acknowledged in all its complexity, including the violence, but not that this identity construct now cornerstone the nation’s collective purpose going forward - its identifying adherents accorded official privilege - given the identity is now wholly ancestral and applies to lees than 4% of the population, and as migrants keep arriving in significant numbers every year.
This approach is arguably in the interest of any and all new Australians, whether born or travelled here.
The future’s that way, together.
NZ and Canada are having a similar conversation.
Like you I’m just amazed at this constant fantastical mythologising of all things Aboriginal. It seems so out of character, a graft from America as you somewhat imply. Australians wringing their hands about it should nonetheless ask if they too participated in the forgetting of our past into which these kind of superstitions can easily move and claim some spiritual depth which we feel we have lost.
It actually seems more Australian somehow than American.
Land acknowledgements are genuinely fringe in the US. Australia is global #1 in them
Tropical Canadians having national identity problems, eh. I am not a serious person.
Multiculturalism has a glaring defect that it causes the population of the host country to “believe” that all the shared cultures are equal. Be they from Scotland , Argentina, or certain middle eastern countries that believe in female genital mutilation and honour killing.
But the host nation isn’t resilient enough to stamp which practices are acceptable or not. Possibly because multiculturalism is promoted via tasty food
Pizza+coffee is superior to tea+biscuits. So you can see why this tactic has worked so far.