Take a look, Dant'; concur?

For sure I agree. This 'wanting' of other cultures to freeze and be accurate portrayals of our textbooks and multimedia experience was insightfully articulated.

There's lots at work under the surface here that I didn't see mention, living in a tourist area of Sydney (Bondi beach and South Head):
The fact that Australia has always been eager to sell its wilderness and beaches internationally, in all sorts of multimedia. >75% of the population is urban/coastal yet there's this unmistakable, almost touchy, pride in the rugged outback as the moulder of the 'Aussie character'.
Another element is the comfort in stereotyping, as it facilitates first contact and so on and is often necessary. I see many eateries and shops along the beach using this as marketing tactic.
Also prevalent in Australian political and cultural echelons is an overweening desire to be noted in international circles, and this has fueled the rate at which foreign cultures are embraced. This is neither good nor bad to someone like myself, just worth noting.

But what is Australian culture really? In its checkered past, there's been an inglorious attitude towards the Aborigines, the 'White Australia' policy, the One Nation Party, the refugees crisis, powermongering in South East Asian countries.
Few other countries pour as much money per capita as Australia into sports development and the creation of character-building sporting myth/legend. Yet there's periodic lamentation of the 'brain drain' to overseas facilities.
Australia's own roots is distinctly multicultural; Mediterraneans, Asian, and of course North Americans in recent times.
At times, Australian 'culture' seems amorphous really, and being a child of science, America is mostly seen as a land of resources which Australia cannot match.

There are several Aboriginal reserves, and having been to a few in the last few years, they look desperately in need of explaining to themselves just how they wish to define and preserve their culture. Do the Aborigines feature prominently in advertisment campagins overseas?

I'm sure there's a lot in reverse too; a faintly derisive attitude some (mostly elderly) Australians take towards Americans. But their time of envy is past and I think Australia has more to lose by resisting globalisation than by accepting it. There's the usual uproar over buying Australian-made cars, medications and foodstuffs, over the overseas brands, as this will give employment; but there has been no trend despite this message being broadcasted.

At the heart of worrying about the loss of cultural identity seems to be a fear of losing uniqueness or 'bargaining status'.

Personally I'm going to chase up the references mentioned in the penultimate paragraph of that review and ask myself what is lost, exactly, by modernising/globalising. At the moment Australian 'traditional' community is actually several ethnic communities interacting cordially and occasionally, warily, with each other.

Originally posted by Dante:
Personally I'm going to chase up the references mentioned in the penultimate paragraph of that review and ask myself what is lost, exactly, by modernising/globalising.

    Indeed; from the selfsame paragraph's mawkish prose:

“Both Cowen and Moses suggest that the triumph of global modernity is shadowed by the tragic loss of traditional community.”

    It's difficult to discern how embedded communities in a newly appropriated land differ from so-called “traditional” communities, unless vertically: that is, according to relative stages of development.

    My sense is that the distinction between a traditional and “grafted” or embedded community is one of convenience; else the process of globalisation should be said to have been in play since the very first exchanges of genetically modified grains in 4000 B.C.Æ., or indeed that inaugurative diaspora of the new-fangled hominid as he departed from his Mesopotamian birthplace.

    Hot air.

Wait, I see - ethnic jokes are lost by the process of globalisation. No more jokes that go: "there's this Englishman, Frenchman, German and this Jew..." Those are the disquieting jokes, because they remind us of differences and reinforces pecularities at the same time.

Are globalisation and multiculturalism such dichotomous concepts, you think? Is the co-existence of those communities what 'multiculturalism' is about?

Seriously though, often I see the catchphrase 'multiculturalism' used in my country (what an odd sentiment - 'my country'), politically promoting the wonders of similarities. But in effect, they're invalidating historical and ethnic traits that make communities different. These days, I commonly hear it used as a sappy mantra of 'peace and love'.

It seems that reviewer is calling for a 'cultural guardian' of some sort. I thought it noble at first, but after wrestling with the concept a few days, somewhat existentially, I'm beginning to consider it a waste of time.

Hot air, indeed.

It really doesn't matter how people mourn such loss, except in the way their children are shaped.
But even that, in the end, purely and simply, will be selected by circumstance.

Someone needs to tell that reviewer that stereotypes make the world go round. In fact, the very concept of globalisation as an evil all-encompassing force is a stereotype used in that article to appeal to the reader.

Globalisation is a great leveller; much the same way as death.

Or is such thought, or apathy to those who do care, actually part of the decried 'rot'? Frankly, I get the idea that for most, the traditional community is assumed to be more 'advanced' in development than the grafted one, and thus more 'valuable' than grafted ones.

That's disturbing.