derrrp

Eine Gesellschaft, die Arbeit mit Steuern bestraft, Abhängigkeit mit Sozialleistungen belohnt, Risikobereitschaft durch Bürokratie erstickt und Erfolg als ‚ungerecht‘ verteufelt, steuert direkt in den Abgrund. Freiheit, Eigentum und Eigenverantwortung sind keine Nettigkeiten – sie sind die Grundlage von Wohlstand. Wer sie abschafft, erntet Armut für alle.

If a white English citizen and a white Australian citizen of Anglo-Celtic descent both took a DNA test, and someone reviewed only the results (without any other information), could they reliably distinguish which person was from the UK and which was from Australia? Since 1948, Australian legal and policy definitions have formally included Indigenous Aboriginal peoples as Australian citizens. If a DNA test now included three individuals - a white English citizen, a white Anglo-Celtic Australian citizen, and an Indigenous Aboriginal Australian citizen - and someone had to determine their likely geographic or ethnic origin based solely on the DNA results, which of them could be clearly placed within continental Australia? It would be the person who was originally excluded from the Australian identity. The indigenous Australian, or someone with mixed indigenous DNA. Australian ethnicity, by its very complex history of colonialism and Western concepts of multiculturalism, already introduces variables that do not exist, for instance, within more defined and established ethnicities tied to geographical locations. A blind DNA test would be able to place a Japanese person in Japan 99% of the time. The same goes for the British Isles: you can place a person there definitively, with the only caveat being the further expansion of the originating ethnic groups such as Saxons, Celts, and others. Having said all that it's broadly accepted there is a cultural Australian ethnicity, and Anglo-Celtic peoples historically are responsible for the foundation and nurturing of that identity. Various Anglo-Celtic Australians today argue they are colonisers and responsible for genocide, and some indigenous Aboriginals do not recognise Australia at all, they do not recognise Australian ethnicity at all and see it as invasive. So it is not a universal view whatsoever as people make it out to be. I would say the debate is who is included in this cultural Australian identity and if by values alone you could become an Australian. I would see you as an Australian within this. This actually also makes it easy to exclude people who are culturally incompatible and or do not wish to assimilate. The issue however again is that there is no universal acceptance of this value system.

This was taken from us.

If a white English citizen and a white Australian citizen of Anglo-Celtic descent both took a DNA test, and someone reviewed only the results (without any other information), could they reliably distinguish which person was from the UK and which was from Australia? Since 1948, Australian legal and policy definitions have formally included Indigenous Aboriginal peoples as Australian citizens. If a DNA test now included three individuals - a white English citizen, a white Anglo-Celtic Australian citizen, and an Indigenous Aboriginal Australian citizen - and someone had to determine their likely geographic or ethnic origin based solely on the DNA results, which of them could be clearly placed within continental Australia? It would be the person who was originally excluded from the Australian identity. The indigenous Australian, or someone with mixed indigenous DNA. Australian ethnicity, by its very complex history of colonialism and Western concepts of multiculturalism, already introduces variables that do not exist, for instance, within more defined and established ethnicities tied to geographical locations. A blind DNA test would be able to place a Japanese person in Japan 99% of the time. The same goes for the British Isles: you can place a person there definitively, with the only caveat being the further expansion of the originating ethnic groups such as Saxons, Celts, and others. Having said all that it's broadly accepted there is a cultural Australian ethnicity, and Anglo-Celtic peoples historically are responsible for the foundation and nurturing of that identity. Various Anglo-Celtic Australians today argue they are colonisers and responsible for genocide, and some indigenous Aboriginals do not recognise Australia at all, they do not recognise Australian ethnicity at all and see it as invasive. So it is not a universal view whatsoever as people make it out to be. I would say the debate is who is included in this cultural Australian identity and if by values alone you could become an Australian. I would see you as an Australian within this. This actually also makes it easy to exclude people who are culturally incompatible and or do not wish to assimilate. The issue however again is that there is no universal acceptance of this value system.