Brive1987 wrote: ↑
3.”Religion is part of culture”. ‘Part’ is key there.
A pretty significant part. See the difference between more secular muslims in the US and less secular ones in the UK. Which has a lot to do with the leadership of UK mosques being highly influenced by foreign fundamentalists. Or more secular Albanian muslims vs less secular Bosniak ones, since Bosniak muslims have codified islamic reactionary ideas as a cultural signifier after recent oppression from Serbs and Croats, and have also been affected by foreign influences of reactionary Sunni imams.
4. I get the vibe you are going to assume I argued that race begets (and is a requirement) for a given culture. 🛑
You seem to assume a much stronger correlation than what the data support. I don't think you argue that race is a requirement for culture, but surely you seem to think that a black (actually mixed race) woman playing Joan of Arc is a cultural threat on a certain level instead of signal of integration. You're probably not obsessed with racial purity as Dick Spencer or Tara McCarthy, but I get the vibe that you think that assimilation is very limited and not really a goal worth pursuing.
5. “Culture is learnt” is simplification. It’s taught by parents and experienced/consumed. It resonates with history etc
It is learnt, but not just by parents. It's learnt by parents, peers, acquaintances, social groups and institutions (including schools), places of worship, authorities, etc. The role of education and institutions is much larger in shaping culture than many think. For example in Switzerland the role of the mandatory military training for all citizens as a social glue between different cultures in the same country (German, French, Italian, Romansch) shouldn't be underestimated.
6. Cultural complexity does not negate its existence. Don’t be a culture denier.
7. Culture changes slowly and organically or by more revolutionary mechanisms. Like mass migration.
I'm not denying culture. I'm saying it's far more fluid than what the trad-thots believe. Let alone the more extreme alt-righters.
8. I’ve demo to u that Greek/Italian migration was smaller in numbers. Keating explained other facets encouraging integ.
I've already said that limiting immigration, or solving specific issues related to immigration, isn't necessarily irrational. The "completely open borders" or "all immigration restrictions are racist" positions are very extreme, and irrational. My beef is with the identity politics of "European separatism" within the conglomerate of commentators that is called "alt-right" (which sometimes, as in Richard Spencer's case, shades into explicit "white nationalism")
9. Australia’s long term immigration avg was 70K. With a European slant. I could live with that. However ..
Migration to Australia currently sits at double the long-term average, down from triple during the last years of the mining boom. The bulk of this influx comes from the government’s permanent migration program, currently pegged at 190,000 people a year and mostly comprising skilled migrants.
Nb. “Skilled workers” is a misnomer. Unemployment levels are high in this class. And the numbers includes all their dependants.
How much has Australia grown? Compared to the total population, are 190K significantly much more than what 70K were compared to the 1960s-1970s population? How high is unemployment among immigrants in Australia? How can you quantify the economic impact of immigration? Those are all serious questions, that can be discussed without any reference to "cultural collectives" or other alienating messages.
If you want to change the immigration policy of your country, you should be prepared to present (or find) some sort of rational approached based on economic and social issues rather on "cultural change". It seems like most Australians are concerned with immigration
but not on board with your identitarian ideas:
The latest fortnightly survey of 1,026 voters finds that 54% of the sample believe Australia’s rate of population growth is too fast – which is up from 45% recorded five years ago.
A higher percentage, 64%, think the level of immigration in Australia over the past decade has been too high – up from 50% recorded in October 2016.
But while the trend underscores increasing community concern about immigration and population growth, 55% of the sample agree with the proposition that “multiculturalism and cultural diversity has enriched the social and economic lives of all Australians”.
The statement “multiculturalism has failed and caused social division and dangerous extremism in Australia” was endorsed by 32%, while 13% did not have a view.
A focus on specific issues, rather than the whole package of "immigration", might help you to get support:
Voters were asked this fortnight to express a view about temporary and permanent migration, as well as short-term entrants. Forty-seven per cent believed there should be fewer short-term working visas and 46% were in favour of fewer permanent refugees.
There was less concern about short-term student visas (39%), short-term working holiday visas (38%) and short-term business visas (36%). These categories are significant contributors to the higher number of foreigners currently in the country. There has been an influx of foreign students, with 200,000 more in the country than there were three years ago.
A majority (63%) believed that foreign workers on short-term visas undermined the capacity of Australians to get a job and also agreed with the proposition – advanced by politicians including the former prime minister Tony Abbott – that the big cities can’t cope with further population growth, and immigration should be wound back until the necessary infrastructure is put in place (62%).
A majority (61%) said they believed that “overall” immigration had made a positive contribution to Australian society but a majority (55%) also agreed with the statement immigration should be slowed as it causes too much change to our society.
Re external slant. I’m confident your euro-liberal perspective is of a slightly different slant than that cultivated in the shadowy valleys of the Grindelwald. Some would see this as a compliment. Others might disagree. :shock: Oh dear. Have I been racist again?
Just curious. It seemed a weird turn of phrase, one that you had never used before, and since you're big on your specific jargon, I wanted to understand what you meant.