Multiculturalism in Australia - Essay Example

Multiculturalism has since the early 1970's been the Australian governments approach to immigrating groups of people. While viewed by politicians as a progressive policy, multiculturalism encourages divisions in the community by advocating a leaning towards identifying with ones ethnic background through government sponsored community language programs and ethnic media outlets. This leads to introverted ethnic communities, perpetuates racially motivated gangs and condones cultural practices seen as unacceptable or illegal by mainstream Australia. The policy of multiculturalism is in fact not supported by the majority of Australians and must be addressed and reformed in order to prevent it being the cause of national disunity. (123 words) Multiculturalism is a concept which has in recent years, been embraced by the Australian government. However, a policy of allowing a diverse melting-pot of cultures within our borders has its dangers which are often overlooked as discussions on the topic are considered to be politically incorrect. This essay argues that the Australian governments stance on multiculturalism has lead to national disunity and that our national identity is damaged as a result. The current policies and social issues relating to the subject will be examined in support of this argument as well as public opinions on the issue of multiculturalism. Furthermore the failed policies of multiculturalism in other countries will be examined. Since the Whitlam government implemented radical changes to the policy of multiculturalism in the early 1970's, successive governments have all demonstrated a commitment to perpetuating the policy. However, criticism of this sensitive issue is often overlooked or discarded offhand by many academics as politically incorrect. Politicians tend to advocate multiculturalism based on its positive aspects and yet are quick to turn a blind eye on its undesirable outcomes. After three decades, the policy of multiculturalism has in fact caused deeper divisions in the community, and though originally implemented with good intentions. Through multicultural policies foreign cultures are sustained and encouraged creating bases of foreign culture within Australia, to the direct detriment of the Australian identity. The policy is divisive as it encourages people to identify with their "ethnicity" rather than to adapt to an Australian way of life. Multiculturalism has lead to the creation ethnic enclaves; migrants living within these 'micro-nations' are presented with a situation where they have little incentive to learn English and become socially and economically integrated with those outside their group. Multiculturalism, with its emphasis on community languages and ethnic media, promotes the development of these ethnic identities and impedes the development of a strong Australian national identity. Multicultural policies are also responsible for accepting and promoting all cultural traditions. Many traditional ethnic customs are considered unacceptable by mainstream Australian society, and some do not accord with the rule of law. Deep seeded ethnic hatreds that immigrants may harbour are divisive, these hatreds then have a haven in which to sustain themselves in the ethnic enclaves discussed earlier, and have the potential to be passed onto successive generations. These hatreds, coupled with a sense of cultural identification with ones country of descent rather than with Australia can then lead to the establishment of ethnic gangs, which have grown in many major population centers. The divisiveness that these impacts have on Australia's cultural identity is exemplified by the Cronulla riots in December 2005. Public opinion over the years on the topic of multiculturalism has seen a constant division on attitudes. According to a 1987 survey approximately 42 percent of the respondents believed that immigration should be halted altogether. Two polls, in 1995 and 2003, both found "over 70% support for the view that it is better for society if groups adapt and blend into the larger society', with only 16% agreeing that ethnic minorities should be given government assistance to preserve their customs and traditions". Public opinion clearly dictates that a policy of assimilation over multiculturalism should be adopted. Multicultural policies adopted in the United Kingdom, USA, South Africa, Fiji and many other countries have resulted in creating disunities multicultural societies. The policy has lead to strained communities. Multicultural policies in these countries has brought about, and encouraged inter-ethnic rivalry, which has in many instances lead to race riots. In summary, this essay has established that the flawed policy of multiculturalism has been perpetuated by successive governments for three decades, yet has not seen the desired rise in status of ethnic groups. On the contrary the policy encourages immigrants to identify with their ethnicity at the expense of an Australian identity, and condones cultural practices not considered as acceptable by mainstream Australian culture or law, leading to the growth of introverted ethnic communities, as well as ethnically motivated gangs. It is clear that the majority of Australians do not support the policy believing that it causes cultural divisiveness. Australia's policy of multiculturalism was started as a well intentioned initiative to, among other things broaden the Australian cultural identity, it has had the exact opposite effect. By underlining and promoting cultural differences within the community multiculturalism has caused even deeper social rifts between people of different backgrounds, emphasising their differences rather than their similarities. Multicultural policy has created a situation where Australia is made up of many conflicting identities rather than a single identity with a colourful background on which to draw strength. Future government policy should encourage recognition of individual cultural heritage but, emphasize integration and assimilation. Multiculturalism in Australia and its negative impact on society Multiculturalism" is a fitting word taken from Canadian politics to signify an indefinite set of ideas which supposedly promotes the economic and cultural interests of definite non-Anglomorph sections of the Australian society. If proposers of multiculturalism are asked to explain this concept, there will be as many explanations as there are proposers. Canadian multiculturalism in is a historic trade-off struck between the posterities of English-speaking and French-speaking population. French Canadians came to Canada earlier and therefore remained a linguistically individual community. They make up the massive majority of the Quebec population, one-third of New Brunswick and noteworthy quantity of Ontario and Manitoba. In Canada, multiculturalism presents a formula for the tuneful treaty of the two main communities and serves to maintain the agreement and integrity of the population. These features have no appropriateness in the Australian context, and therefore multiculturalism in Australia should have some other exculpation. However, one can make no progress in this direction without an ample understanding of what the notion means. How Australians became Multicultural Until World War II, Australians were mostly of British and Irish ancestry. But there were large immigrations from Lebanon, Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Turkey after the war, and new immigrants from Asia. In Australia there are as well about 230 000 Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. In 1989, the Commonwealth Government approved the principles of the National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia. According to there were three key principles of the multicultural policy: "cultural identity - the right of all Australians, within cautiously distinguished limits, to state and split their personal cultural heritage, involving their religion and language social justice - the right of all Australians to equality of treatment and opportunity, and the elimination of barriers of culture, ethnicity, race, religion, language, gender, disability or place of birth economic effectiveness - the need to maintain, develop and use effectively the skills and talents of all Australians, regardless of background. "(Docker and Fischer 2000) These rules apply similarly to all Australians, mo matter where they come from: an Indigenous, Anglo-Celtic or non-English speaking background, and no matter where they were born in Australia or abroad. Australian Multicultural Policies Australian multicultural policies are based on the condition that: all Australians should have a paramount and uniting engagement to Australia, to its comfort and future, first and main all Australians are obliged to recognize the main structures and rules of Australian society - the Constitution and the rule of law, acceptance and equal opportunities, Parliamentary democracy, freedom of religion and speech, English as the nationalized language and parity of the sexes the right to put across one's own ideas and culture involves a mutual duty to recognize the right of others to put across their opinions and values. Multiculturalism, as presently conceived in Australia Australia has a desirable worldwide reputation for being a racially lenient and culturally diverse country. On 30 October 1996, the Government officially re-approved its engagement to racial lenience. The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, made a Parliamentary Statement on Racial Tolerance in the Australian Parliament's House of Representatives. The statement was approved by the Opposition Leader, Mr Kim Beazley, and supported generally. At the least disputable level, multiculturalism fastens the recognition that in Australia there are various cultural groups. At this level the notion is a merely accurate statement which can have smallest effect on policy. On the other hand there are notions of multiculturalism which declare the right of each ethnic community to preserve its language and culture in Australia, if needed with the help of community funded programmes. Somewhere in between there is Senator Gareth Evans who understands multiculturalists policy as "programmes, including those supported from the public purse, expressly designed to create a more open-textured and tolerant social environment" (Docker and Fischer 2000) The multicultural debate was also embarrassed by the inclusion in it of the principles and values of the Aboriginal population. The place of Aborigines is traditionally distinct from other ethnic groups. The Australian Aborigines live only in Australia, and consequently there are their culture and their own language, while Italian, Greek or Chinese population and culture can be found elsewhere. The events in Australia have no effect on the survival of this population and its culture. The continued existence of Aboriginal language and culture on the other hand depends exclusively on the events in Australia. That is why as regards the protection of cultures themselves, there are opinions which are related to exclusively Aboriginal culture. The Aboriginal issue is a separate discussion and should not be confused with the issues concerning the cultural interests of other populations. The type of multiculturalism of the type practised in Australia is basically flawed by a retrogressive notion of culture itself. This notion regards culture as something immutable, to be preserved in its immaculacy no matter where the member of that cultural group live. Culture is not immutable even in isolated communities. It is changing in the process of interaction between people and the environment they live in. In isolated communities culture may develop not very quickly and may even appear to be immutable. But in communities which interrelate with other communities, quick cultural development is usually noticed. When a small community interrelates with a large community it is unavoidable that something from more prevalent culture become predominate in the evolutionary result. Therefore when a small group of Greeks or Italians appears in Anglomorph environment, it is unavoidable that they will become absorbed by the larger community sooner or later. The contrary process happens when small groups of Anglomorphs came to non-Anglomorph societies for example to Argentina. According to British Colonial administrators were somewhat of an exception "as they isolated themselves in the colonial outposts. Even so, Englishmen who returned from the colonies showed distinct signs of exposure to foreign cultures. In Sri Lanka, the English and Scottish plantation managers became a distinct breed of Englishmen or Scotsmen under the local cultural influence. Many had problems of resettling in Britain and a few even returned to Sri Lanka to live out their retirement. This happened despite the isolation and aloofness of the European community on the island." (Docker and Fischer 2000) When the various cultural groups are subject to one another's effect, it is inevitable that the cultures will interrelate and that the culture of the larger group will tend to absorb the cultures of the others. On the other hand, this does not mean that the culture which is absorbed will not leave its marks on the superior culture. Nor should it be so, for, as T.S. Eliot wrote: 'The country which receives culture from abroad without having anything to give in return, and the country which aims to impose its culture on another, without accepting anything in return, will both suffer from this lack of reciprocity' (Docker and Fischer 2000) In spite of the utterance "when in Rome, do as the Romans do", it is unmistakable from history that Rome itself was changed by its assimilation of barbarians into its legal economic and social organization. Multiculturalism, as presently conceived in Australia, seeks to hinder (for it is not possible to arrest) this process of contact and development. It includes the investing of vast quantities of public money into the project which must unavoidably and finally fail. To uphold for any period of time the cultural individuality of various groups, much more than money is necessary. "It needs an iron clad system of apartheid or self-imposed inward looking communal traditions." (Docker and Fischer 2000) As the current situation in South Africa shows, even a system of apartheid cannot vaguely bear up the pressures-of assimilation. Even if such a project has a theoretical possibility of victory, its aim is improper from the point of view of human unfolding. The real possibility is that multiculturalism will fail in its goal of keeping the cultures different but will foment inter-communal dissonance. The problem is if we want an Australian culture or a collection of different ethnic cultures. Does the information that Anglomorph features are likely to prevail in an Australian culture make the attainment of such a national culture any less attractive Who needs multiculturalism Surely non-Anglomorph migrants will be primarily deprived by language and cultural factors. "The transitional problems of new immigrants can be addressed without State-sponsored programmes for the preservation of ethnic cultures." (Docker and Fischer 2000) The goals of assuaging transitional difficulty and of culture dissemination have often been intentionally confused. The larger goals of multiculturalism have been realised without a hint of support even from ethnic communities. They have the support of organised interest groups within such communities but there is "no evidence of enthusiasm for them in the communities themselves." A Morgan Gallup poll of voter intentions between April 1981 and March 1982 revealed that even among Australians born abroad, the distribution amongst parties were approximately similar to Australian-born voters (Docker and Fischer 2000). According to that poll, the "overseas-born" support for the ALP was 48.64% while its national proportion was 47.46%. The associated figures for the Coalition were 39.59% and 41.59%. Two important facts emerged from the poll. One was that the distribution of "overseas-born" hold up for the parties did not considerably differ from the national distribution in spite of the fact that the ALP was more strongly identified with multiculturalism while the Coalition has been usually portrayed as a party of Anglophiles. The second was that overseas-born Chinese Australians, who, in current years, have attracted the utmost anger, gave the Coalition a greater proportion of its support than the Coalition got nationally (53.57% as against 39.59%). The poll was also noteworthy in that it did not point to the wishes of Australian-born ethnics, or posterior descendants of migrants. These are the Australians who have become absorbed into the main direction of the cultural life and who are among the best qualified to state criticism on the multicultural theories of condescending Anglomorphs. Multiculturalist policies were mostly conducted on two main goals, namely language preservation by means of school teaching and the provision of cultural activity by means of publicly sponsored ethnic television and radio. Concerning language teaching, no one can refute the instructive experience of learning Italian, Greek, French, German, Arabic or Chinese, without mentioning many other various languages spoken by settlers. But there is a distinction between teaching language for its educational worth and teaching it in order to reach the unreal aims of multiculturalism. If education is the goal, then priorities must be defined reasonably after talking account of sources, expenses and advantages. So, it should not be forgotten that the vital demand of both educationists and ethnic Australians is to enlarge opportunities for teaching English to settlers disadvantaged by language. The delusiveness of the supposition that settlers want multiculturalism is understandable from the presentation of ethnic television. The McNair Anderson Survey disclosed that in 1982 only 15% of the ethnic population saw the Melbourne broadcasts of SBS Television compared with 22, 27 and 32 per cent for the commercial channels. 'The channel had become a luxury catering to the "film festival set" or as Senator Button described, the middle-class Australians too lazy to go to continental cinemas". (Docker and Fischer 2000). The ethnic communities are not buying the multicultural products sold by governments. The conditions for development of multiculturalism in Australia It might be possible to eliminate multiculturalism as another ineffectual exercise in social engineering but for the fact that, even if it fails in its stated aims, it may still succeed in sowing the seeds of communal discord. Australia is among the lucky countries of the world which has the ability to culturally unite different peoples with minimum distress. Many countries, for primarily historical and political reasons, have huge problems of settling conflicts between competing cultures which oppose integration. Sri Lanka is a perfect example. Ever since the uniting element of a common language (English) was eliminated by chauvinistic politicians, the people of two minor lingual communities treated each other with distrust and unfriendliness. Australia luckily has no comparable problem as yet. However, the multicultural policy establishes one where none exists. The violent behaviour that erupted at a football match between Sydney City and Sydney Olympic shocked the Australian community. But few have been concerned enough to examine the relationship of that incident to the unpleasant tendency to arrange football clubs on ethnic lines. That unattractive episode has an essential lesson for people who have created a virtue out of cultural parting. Multiculturalism as understood at present has no place in a democratic community. The democratic community is characterised by the non-existence of unfairness and the existence of individual freedom. In such a community there is cultural freedom and the freedom of principles. An individual is free to take on in cultural activity by himself or together with others. If one wants to live in isolation, he may do so. But he also has the freedom to intermingle and interact. What is not allowable in a really free society is the dictation of rules of behaviour or the state support of culture. Culture belongs to the people and its future must be in their hands. A society that has all the conditions for the satisfaction of individual needs through voluntary exchange is productive ground for cultural enhancement. Wave after wave of immigrants has come to Australia not because of a state-guaranteed cultural environment but because of the hope that Australia will give them the freedom and chance for individual improvement. Far from off-putting migration, the Anglomorph culture of Australia, with its liberal political traditions, has served as a main magnetism to immigrants. The hope of migrants that Australian society will give opportunities for them to please their spiritual, cultural and material needs has mostly been accomplished by the liberal character of the Australian institutions and the deep conviction in the liberal way of life shared by the Australian community. Propagandists for multiculturalism do not understand the fact that Australia without its patronising governments is one of the most lenient societies on earth. This may not be clear to propagandists of multiculturalism but it is perfectly understandable to migrants, the mainstream of whom have left repression of one sort or another. Australia is not free of chauvinism and discrimination. But in comparison to other nations this country's acceptance of immigrants is second to none. Multiculturalism is yet another instance of governments trying to heal the incompleteness of society through patronizing theories and short-sighted political manners. If the proponents of multiculturalism try to determine the ideas and perceptions of the quiet mainstream they will reveal that what Australia's care for immigrants is not merely its plentiful riches but its political traditions which give people the opportunity to live their personal lives without government intrusion. They will reveal that most immigrants would rather not find Australia obtain the characteristics which made their own homelands unwelcoming to them. The conflict of cultures Multiculturalism is a refutation of the plain truth that cultures conflict. The proposers of multiculturalism attack this truth by stating that: "All the various cultures can live like one big cheerful family as soon as we get rid of the bad people-the racists, sexists, fascists, chauvinists, bigots, red necks etc." (Docker and Fischer 2000) They do not utter these words directly because such a plain statement instantly reveals the illogicality of multiculturalism, but this is what they imply by their words and deeds. "The flaws of their notion are easy to realise as various cultures have different beliefs that make them incompatible. For example either: Adulterers are stoned to death or they are not. Thieves have their limbs amputated or they retain them. Young men who show contempt for their elders are speared to death or they are not. Wives are the property of their husbands or they are independent citizens. " All of these contradictory principles are the choices of cultures with supporters in Australia, but it is obvious that only one way can be followed, that is why one culture must lead. Australian Law and culture The only set of principles that is in power in Australia is Australian culture, which is the law of the country, and anybody trying to impose contrasting cultural values will undergo legal penalty. Which means that to defend law and order, the values of other cultures must be repressed. Really, Australian society does not merely prohibit practices that break Australian common law, but have extended Commonwealth statutes exactly to forbid behaviour that has no effect upon Australians, but which is considered to be objectionable. "Our multicultural regime has judged female excision as too awful to allow, even though it is practiced by millions throughout the world and affects only those belonging to alien cultures. This prohibition is a clear admission that there are barbaric practices that cannot be allowed, which is a claim that there are people who practice barbarism, Barbarians, who must be resisted -a contradiction of their own Multicultural creed. "(Docker and Fischer 2000) The negative effect of multiculturalism The difference in understanding between cultures makes different cultures enemies, who will struggle to impose their wills upon each other. Western civilization itself is made up of similar but various cultures who themselves have continually tried to control one another, usually through war. "The inevitable impact of multiculturalism upon Australia, and all the other countries that adopt it, is cultural suicide. By allowing the people of different cultures to enter Australia, Australians are allowing their culture, which is their society, to be overrun by another cultures (Barbarians )." (Docker and Fischer 2000) Multiculturalism is not a sensible idea, but is part of the oppression of wishful thinking that unavoidably accompanies the rot of reason. Anyone who tries to resist the hysteria of multiculturalism is instantly stigmatized as a chauvinist or red neck, or racist or fascist or whatever and subject to persecution. In this way the absurdity of multiculturalism is promoted and its real negative effect denied. Works Cited Docker, John, and Gerhard Fischer, eds. Race, Colour, and Identity in Australia and New Zealand. Sydney, N.S.W.: University of New South Wales Press, 2000. Read More