In response to the Pauline Hanson phenomena Ghassan Hage wrote a great book called White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society. It's a great little read, and recommend you to do so, if you can lay your hands on a rare copy of it.
To make a long story short, Hage identifies a number of ways in which Anglo-Australians, the 'real' Aussies, use multiculturalism as a way to assimilate all minorities. And that also means non-Anglo-Celtic white minorities such as French or Dutch. There is considerable irony therefore in the all too frequent attempts of Australian commentators since the London bombings to blame 'multiculturalism' as one basis of minority dissent.
As I seem to be ranting more and more often, multiculturalism does not mean state support for diversity. Multiculturalism, of almost every variety (it differs at times substantially from country to country) is the tolerance of diversity. This tolerance is in place as a trade off for the eventual assimilation of minorities up into the majority.
'Multicultural' policies, like English-language education, or native-language medical care, or a host of other policies, are all in place to help non-national individuals become more like the majority, and not vice versa.
If there happens to be cultural or religious festivals of the 'ethnic' variety, they are not usually supported by governance bodies. Certainly some such festivals are supported by taxpayers, but according to most multicultural doctrines this is the exception, not the norm.
Blaming some generically labelled boogie-man called 'multiculturalism' for minority dissent therefore foolish, because the policy encourages nothing but the better and faster integration of minorities.
As it was, the policy was introduced to Australia during the 1970s as a means to alleviate the well-documented suffering of minorities under extreme and intolerant Australian nation-building. But, now, a generation later, the policy is under fire and being blamed for fomenting minority dissent.
Around the time of the introduction of multiculturalism to Oz, Pat Hohepa wrote a chapter called "Māori and Pākehā: The One-People Myth" in a book by Michael King called Tihe Mauri Ora. What Hohepa argued is pretty much summed up in the title. It was also around this time that the Community Services Report was published.
What both these publications argued was that Māori could be expected to perform better socially and economically if their unique culture was recognised, and that being rolled up into a generic 'New Zealander' identity continued to serve little purpose. The latter document is generally regarded as the primogeniture of biculturalism.
I outlined biculturalism here, so I'll spare you that conversation again, but lets look at this idea that New Zealanders all share one identity.
The short answer is yes, we all do share an identity as New Zealanders. But, and there's always a but, Māori and mainstream societies have been two very different things ever since the signing of the Treaty. Examples? Read James Belich Making Peoples or Michael King The Penguin History of New Zealand, both of which talk about Māori and Pākehā as two separate entities since colonisation.
Naturally, we're all waiting for the new Tory historical revisionism that denies this to have been the case, but till then, sweet as.
There are clearly a number of contemporary political figures that should be forced at gunpoint to read these books.
The 'One-Nation-Myth' works to undermine the reality of New Zealand being a country composed of a number of actively bicultural citizens, not all citizens mind you, but a fair few. And policies that seek to undermine this reality are not only arrogant, but potentially dangerous.
Does anyone remember the protest movements of the 70s and 80s? They occurred because a large number of Māori determined themselves to be excluded from Pākehā New Zealand, and the One-Nation to which they were supposed to belong.
So tell me, what purpose would it serve to take a step back into that era?
Much like the argument that multiculturalism serves to undermine assimilation, the argument that Māori distinctiveness serves to undermine New Zealand nationality is in effect a using a policy of great worth as a justification to isolate and potentially victimise a minority.
And of course, the latter seems to be the only current raison d'être for some parties with what was once a great history of bridge-building in New Zealand.
Next victim? Solo mums. Bring back Jim and Doug I say...