> In my opinion Australia is one of the most monocultural countries in the world
That seems to me to be a rather odd statement. Australia today (and since the 1970s) has a large and ethnically diverse immigration intake. Over the last five years, the top five immigration source countries (in order) are India, China, UK, Philippines, South Africa [1]. In 2015, 28.2% of Australia's population was born overseas, compared to only 13.7% of the US population – per capita Australia has a significantly higher immigration rate than the US. If you are looking for a country deserving the title of "most monocultural", a country such as Japan is far more fitting of that title than Australia.
> It is a monoculture because they basically exterminated natives like they were bunnies in order for some guys to take all the territory to themselves.
As regrettable as it was, I don't think what happened to indigenous Australians was hugely different from what happened to the indigenous populations of the US and Canada. And, just like the US and Canada, the question of contemporary ethnic/racial diversity is in numerical terms far more determined by the diversity of immigration source countries (both contemporary and historical) than by the surviving indigenous population.
> There is only one culture in Australia precisely because all the minorities are not significant.
Around 12% of Australia's population has (South/East/Central/Southeast) Asian ancestry. The Asian minority is concentrated in the major cities, so if you live in a major city (but especially Sydney and Melbourne) it is higher than 12%. And, the European-descended population exhibits a mix of ethnicities too – while about 45% of the population report British or Irish ancestry, 4.6% report Italian and 4.5% German. So "all the minorities are not significant" is a very odd (and quite possibly offensive) thing to say.
> What makes Australia a great place to life is having a continent almost as big as the USA,with comparable natural resources, but with less than 13 times less population.
The US has far more water than Australia, which is part of why it has 13 times the population. So I'd question how true "comparable natural resources" really is.
That seems to me to be a rather odd statement. Australia today (and since the 1970s) has a large and ethnically diverse immigration intake. Over the last five years, the top five immigration source countries (in order) are India, China, UK, Philippines, South Africa [1]. In 2015, 28.2% of Australia's population was born overseas, compared to only 13.7% of the US population – per capita Australia has a significantly higher immigration rate than the US. If you are looking for a country deserving the title of "most monocultural", a country such as Japan is far more fitting of that title than Australia.
[1] https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2015...
> It is a monoculture because they basically exterminated natives like they were bunnies in order for some guys to take all the territory to themselves.
As regrettable as it was, I don't think what happened to indigenous Australians was hugely different from what happened to the indigenous populations of the US and Canada. And, just like the US and Canada, the question of contemporary ethnic/racial diversity is in numerical terms far more determined by the diversity of immigration source countries (both contemporary and historical) than by the surviving indigenous population.
> There is only one culture in Australia precisely because all the minorities are not significant.
Around 12% of Australia's population has (South/East/Central/Southeast) Asian ancestry. The Asian minority is concentrated in the major cities, so if you live in a major city (but especially Sydney and Melbourne) it is higher than 12%. And, the European-descended population exhibits a mix of ethnicities too – while about 45% of the population report British or Irish ancestry, 4.6% report Italian and 4.5% German. So "all the minorities are not significant" is a very odd (and quite possibly offensive) thing to say.
> What makes Australia a great place to life is having a continent almost as big as the USA,with comparable natural resources, but with less than 13 times less population.
The US has far more water than Australia, which is part of why it has 13 times the population. So I'd question how true "comparable natural resources" really is.