Talk:White Australia policy/Archive 1

Language test

I remember the case of a well educated Chinese man passing the intial "dictation test" forcing the racist migration officials to try and come up with it in a language he didn't know so they could reject him - i think the one they chose was Esperanto but i'm not completely certain.

Kanaka

What does Kanakas mean? Chinese immigrant, maybe? --rmhermen

• A kanakas was a malay or indonesian peasant recruited (sometimes forcibly) to work in the cane fields). I've added it to the text. Also changed "favoured British" to "favoured "Anglo-saxon", as immigrants from Ireland and (to a lesser extent) America were also accepted. This is a good article. - [MMGB]

final paragraph/section

The final paragraph needs to either be explicitly related to the topic ('White Australia Policy') or moved to a more appropriate location elsewhere. If the intention is to claim that the current Oz refugee policy is a revival of the WAP by stealth, then this claim should be made explicitly, not snuck in on the assumption that the reader will not notice. If this is not the intention, then what is the relevance of the final para to the WAP and where is this explained in the article? (Note that this is not an objection to that claim per se - it is a view that I am inclined to have some sympathy for - just to the presentation of it as is.) As it stands, the para has severe POV problems. In particular, the placement of the final sentence ("The Liberal Party ... has used race as an issue in election campaigning" & etc.) in a para starting with "in recent years" is misleading, unless it is actually intended to claim that the LP has campaigned on race since the 60s or 70s. (Because of the controversial nature of the topic, I thought wise to discuss this first rather than simply make the corrections.) Tannin

I agree that the paragraph has POV problems and should be rewritten. I would argue that the current refugee issue is still worth a mention here, as many observers have claimed that the real objection to the current wave of asylum seekers is at least partly race (or religiously) based. In that sense, the fear of "the other" that motivated the WAP may be argued to be operating in current Australian immigration policy - even if "the other" has changed.--Robert Merkel 12:29 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

Rewritten. Hmmm.... Is it fair? I have the feeling that I have managed to deeply insult both sides, so I guess that's a start! Tannin 10:12 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

---

its past contains a long period of government-endorsed racism that, among modern Western democracies, was matched by few and possibly exceeded only by the apartheid regime of South Africa.

I wonder if this last claim is actually justified. Has the writer examined US immigration policies which for a long time had explicit racial quotas, for example? What about the past policies of European countries -- is the writer familiar with them all? If not, how is he/she confident about this sweeping allegation? Btw, since when was the apartheid regime of South Africa an example of a "modern Western democracy"? Pending some actual justification, I have deleted the last part of the sentence. -- zero UTC 8:26 Jul 27, 2003.

I have edited the para to capture the fact that Australia was not alone in its discriminatory policies without mentioning the status of South Africa. Tiles 08:03, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

IMHO the whole last section should be deleted or turned into a new article about current Australian immigration policy. These matters have nothing to do with the White Australia Policy, which has been dead in theory and practice since the 1960s. It is nonsense to say that current policies are a revival of the WAP when thousands of non-"white" immigrants enter Australia every year. If I get support from other Aust history buffs here I will edit the article accordingly. Dr Adam Carr 08:09, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm. On reflection the current section is OTT. However, this article should at least mention how the ghosts of the policy are often invoked in present-day Australia. --Robert Merkel 08:27, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Something more like this you mean? I'd be fine with that. No doubt we could write a whole article on racism in Australia. Perhaps some of this material could be split off rather than deleted. -- Tim Starling 09:26, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

If people wish to write an article about recent immigration controversies in Australia that is fine: we will see if someone can write a NPOV article about that - I certainly couldn't. But my point is that it doesn't belong here - to put it here is to imply that the current policy is a revival of WAP, which is itself a non-NPOV statement. Dr Adam Carr 10:25, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I have now done a pretty thorough rewrite. Opinions are welcomed :) 210.10.32.12 11:51, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That is, Dr Adam Carr 11:53, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC). (why do I keep getting suddenly logged out?)

Great work! --Robert Merkel 12:30, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I read the new version and thought: this is good: dry, but readable, accurate, and to the point.

Then I read the old version over and thought: this is better: it engages with current issues and does a great deal more to make meaningful connections between the old WAP days and modern Australia. But it (the old version) has flaws too. Although I drafted most of it, I'm not entirely convinced that it is as balanced as it ought to be. It's not far off the mark, but it's just a touch too strong in tone.

I hasten to add that, although most of the words are mine, they don't entirely reflect the article I would have written for myself: it was a (generally successful) attempt to encapsulate the broad and often contradictory variety of views that the article had taken on before my major re-write. Several other contributors had made good, stong points (Robert M, for example) and I tried to accommodate all.

The bottom line is that I like both versions: they serve rather different purposes, but they both have a place here on the 'pedia. Split the old version off as the basis of an entry called Race relations in Australian public life (or something of that general nature)? Hmmm .... On the whole I lean towards not doing that but keeping it all in a single entry, but I'm open to persuasion on this.

Let me put my Devil's Advocate hat on for a moment, and argue the strengths of the old version. Essentially, these amount to a series of points - mostly difficult and controversial ones - that the new version doesn't address or doesn't address as clearly as it might.

• end of the 1960s, marked change in social attitudes
• The social attitudes which underpinned the White Australia Policy have largely, but by no means entirely, disappeared in Australia.
• small minority that still actively promotes racist attitudes
• larger minority that has some sympathy for them
• One Nation's 15 minutes of fame
• Long dead in theory, the White Australia legacy continues to play a role, viz:
  • to advocate explicitly racist policies is to bring down the condemnation of all bar a tiny fringe
  • the stigma still attaching to the White Australia Policy makes it almost impossible to discuss national population policy without either advocating high immigration levels, or else being tarred with the racist brush
  • The illegal immigration connection? (Is it real? Is it nothing to do wityh the WAP? Either way, the question has to be asked. (Note that it is not just asked, but anwered unquestioningly in the affirmative in parts of the world not too far away from here.)
  • Robert's point that the incoate fear of "the other" that motivated the White Australia Policy can be said to be alive and well.

Hmmm ... (taking Devil's Advocate hat off again) ... I think I've persuaded myself - if not of the correct location of that stuff, them most certainly of its importance. I don't agree with all of it, but the points above are regularly raised in public debate, are relevant to racial attitudes and the WAP, and need to be dealt with, even if only to dismiss them.

How would you deal with those matters just above, Adam? Do you agree that they are important? And where do they belong? Here? Somewhere else? I shall look forward to seeing broader discussion. Speak up, gentlemen!

Tannin 13:08, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If the article was headed "history of racial attitudes in Australia" or something, that would all be relevant. But it isn't, it's an article about the WAP, which is a moment in history which ended in the 1960s. My suggestion would be to take the pieces of the original article which are important but not relevant to the history of WAP, and use them for a new article.

I also think we have a philosophical difference. I don't think the point of writing history is to engage with current issues. It is to help people understand the present by giving them as transparent view as possible of the past. People can then make their own connections with the present as they see fit. Dr Adam Carr 15:11, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm .... I think that's debatable. (The relevance question, I mean.) It depends whether we are taking a broad view or a narrow view. But I am inclined to think that it doesn't matter too much either way. So long as the content appears, I'm not overly concerned about which heading it falls under.

On the other matter though, in my view, throwing light on current issues it just about the only point of reading and writing history. Otherwise, what is to be learned from it? Henry Ford would like your view though. ;) Tannin

Racism vs Racialism

It's true that the word "racism" didn't exist before the 1930s, but the very similar word "racialism" did. I'm uneasy about the statement "It is easy, but mistaken, to attribute all these actions to what is now called racism." for a more basic reason. What the paragraph actually argues for is that the beliefs we now call "racism" were the norm in the past, which is not the same thing at all. It is a correct and fair point to make, but the current wording does not make it properly. Adam? --zero 04:43, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Whether Arthur Calwell had a genuine affection for Asian culture is debatable. I remember some of his vitriolic speeches back in the 1950s and also when he came out with the comment: "two Wongs don't make a white". The article does not mention the fact that many Asian countries such as Malaysia, Japan et al after World War II also practiced exclusionary policies in regard to race. Australia is not alone and that should be made clear.

• You would need to quote some of these "vitriolic speeches" for me to change my mind about his attitudes.
• "Two Wongs don't make a white" is a line that has been blown out of all proportion. It was a joke made in the House about two brothers called Wong and a Liberal MP called White. Certainly it was in poor taste by current standards but it was not a crude racial jibe either.
• I agree that many, perhaps most, countries had policies of racial exclusion. That point could I suppose be made somewhere.

Dr Adam Carr

---

I cannot emphasize how POV I find this article. According to the text, the WAP was not racist, period, because all (or "nearly everybody") the powers thought and behaved in this manner. I won't question that "nearly everybody" (though I think it needs to be clarified, a lot). However, I think a POV article would say something along the lines of: "Some people have charged that this policy was the height of racism. However, it should be noted that..." and not flat out saying that it is "mistaken" to call this exclusionary policy racism. Yes, Imperial China thought itself the center of the world, and you know what? Imperial China was an incredibly racist society, whether the word existed or not. Oh, and to me, thinking other races are superior to one's own is racism as well, just of a different stripe (and it's usually a placating diversion from more underlying contempt for others --- viz the US racist's willingness to admit that American blacks are "more gifted" at athletics). Ensiform 17:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What you really mean is that you have a POV, and you are annoyed that the article doesn't reflect it. The article attempts to put the racial attitudes of the period under discussion in their historical context. Feel free to suggest an alternative wording which we can discuss. Adam 23:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, that's not what I "really" mean, but thanks for attempting to read my mind. What I really mean is what I wrote: that a POV article says XXX is wrong even though many find it to be so, while a NPOV article will simply state that one side finds this issue XXX, while others contend that it is YYY. I did suggest this wording above, though I didn't write it out in the particulatrs of this article, since I'm far from knowledgable about WAP. And I stand by my other remarks as well, especially questioning the relevance of whether the word "racism" applies since it wasn't coined until whenever: people were oppressed, discriminated against, even "sexually harrassed" long before those trendy flashwords of the left came into being. Ensiform 17:34, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If racism isn't discrimination against people based on race, what is it? -- Tim Starling 01:08, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

• Well, exactly. Ensiform 05:33, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

"being used without apology" - what does that mean? Anyway, which political slogans are used with apology? --Zero 11:18, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why have an other countries section?

I understand its inclusion for the point of balance, but other countries racism is not the subject of this page. Its inclusion seems to apologise for the policy - 'everyone else was doing it'. How would people like a reference to English concentration camps in South Africa included on the Holocaust page?

Also, racist views of other countries should not be confused with racist legislation - in this instance the laws which are equated with the term 'WAP'.

I think the author should create linked pages to racist policies of other countries of the period if s/he thinks it merits inclusion.

MB.

Yeah

non-European to non white

Change reference of non-European to non white. Firstly, it is about "white" Australian Policy. Secondly, I wouldn't have minded the use of non-European if the article isn't this apologetic. Not even one mention has been made that the cause of the policy is racism in the entire article. Moreover, the fear of being "swamped" is presented as something which can be justified. Inclusion of example of racism of other countres is another example. What if someone trying to do the same in say, Nanking Massacre. Lastly, if you think it is trivial, then leave this edit alone. If you think it is significant, it is more the reason to keep it that way. FWBOarticle 05:35, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Justification for White Australia Policy

The paragraph I have edited mirror exactly how Apartheid was justfied.

"It is important to realise that these fears were not baseless. In 1901 the Australian continent had a population of 3.7 million. It was a short distance from countries where hundreds of million of people lived in conditions of great poverty. The belief that these people would "swamp" European Australia if allowed to do so was mistaken, but it was not unreasonable. Nor was the belief that large numbers of workers might be imported from Asia to undercut Australia's high wages - many employers said openly that they wished to do just that."

Change that with,

"It is importatnt to realise that these fears were not baseless. In 1901, the South Afirca had a population of 3.7 million white settlement. It was short distance from counties where hundreds of millon of blacks lived in condition of great poverty. The belief that these black would "swamp" white if allowed to do so was mistaken, but it was not unreasonable. Nor was the belief that large numbers of black workers might undercut white's high wages - many employers said openly that they wished to do just that."

You can either omit the sentence all together or attribute the sentence as thinly disguised justfication for racist policy. There isn't a problem if Australia limited the immigration all together. It was the fact that restriction were applied only to non white, which made the above excuse as just that.excuse.

If I may comment, all these quotes trying to contextualise the policy as if it is not about race also mirror South Africa. The majority of statement made by the South African government offical were based on economics and cultural. I can see something similar going on here. FWBOarticle 03:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are free to make those comments here but not to insert your opinions into the article as your previous edits did. I agree that the paragraph in question needs rewording. Adam 04:08, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the paragraph so that claim the policy was about economic is expressed as POV. I also added my POV that all those justification would apply for numerical restriction not racial one. I consider that to be obvious "fact" rather than a view. You may disagree. FWBOarticle 04:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your edits are ignorant, illiterate and opinionated, and I will continue to revert them. Adam 04:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Really. what I did was to attribute claim by people like you as such, a view. This isn't a place to assert your view that "WAP was about economic and not racism" as fact. And tell me. I have stated that "all those justification would apply for numerical restriction not racial one." What is your insistence that this is "ignorant, illiterate and opinionated". FWBOarticle 04:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you want to avoid edit war, my advice is to rewrite section to "describe" the role of Trade Union in formation of the policy rather than trying to justify the policy.. If you try to describe motive as "economic" you can't avoid accusation of being apologist. As I stated, those economic justification works for restriction on number of immigrants not on race of immigrants. I may accept that some people were willfully deceving themselves that the policy wasn't about racism just as in the case of Aparthid. The article just looks very bad because it present such justification as fact. FWBOarticle 04:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have checke Apartheid section of Wikepedia. Funny enough same fear of being swaped is mentioned. However, the view is correctly attributed as apologist.

" However; there have been and continue to be academic apologists for apartheid who hold that although the South African implementation of apartheid was flawed, it was intended by its architects to be a system which would separate the races, thus preventing the "Whites" (and other minorities) from being "swamped" and losing their identity, but would nevertheless treat the races fairly and equally"

I am continuing to revert your edits because

• There are in such poor English I don't really know what they mean, and nor will readers
• They are highly opinionated and thus unencyclopaedic
• They show that you don't know anything about Australian history.

So long as you keep making this kind of edit, I will keep reverting them. Adam 06:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• My edit involve very litte of my english. You presented very poor excuse.
• Opinion is not a problem in wikepedia as long as attribution is correctly made. Your argument only show that you have poor understanding of NPOV policy.
• "you don't know anything about Australian history" "Your edits are ignorant, illiterate and opinionated". Is that all you can do? You so far fail to debate any issue I have raised. FWBOarticle 07:35, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If all you can do is name calling, this will continue. I will suggest you to reply to the issues I have raised. FWBOarticle 07:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have not "raised issues." You have a point of view which you are determined to impose on the article, in bad English and without any real knowledge of the subject (none that I can see anyway). You will not be allowed to do this, so I suggest you stop trying. Adam 08:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let start from something very obvious. "The principal force driving policies of racial exclusion in Australia was not a belief that non-Europeans were inferior, but fear of their economic competition." An obvious POV which is presented as a fact. FWBOarticle 08:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is not an opinion, it is a fact, and if you knew anything about Australian history you would know that. Where are you from, by the way? Adam 09:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm rather suprised by your response. I expected that you will at least have to conced this point. Instead you did something completely opposite. So the statement, "the principal force driving policies of racial exclusion in Australia was not a belief that non-Europeans were inferior" is a fact. oookaaay. Here are quotes I pulled from google research.

"I do not think that the doctrine of the equality of man was really ever intended to include racial equality. There is no racial equality. There is that basic inequality. These races are, in comparison with white races… Unequal and inferior." (Prime Minster Edmond Barton, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 26 September 1901, p.5233)"

"I am prepared to do all that is necessary to ensure that Australia shall be free for all time from the contamination and the degrading influence of inferior races." (Isaacs, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 12th Sept 1901 p.4845)

"The unity of Australia is nothing, if that does not imply a united race. A united race not only means that its members can intermix, intermarry and associate without degradation on either side, but implies one inspired by the same ideas..." (Alfread Deakin, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 12 September 1901, p.4807)

"The objection I have to the mixing of these coloured people with the white people of Australia - although I admit it is to a large extent tinged with considerations of an industrial nature - lies...in the possibility and probability of racial contamination." (Chris Watson, leader, Labor Party, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 6 September 1901, pp.4636-4637)

"Im convinced that the bill Will not achieve its objective; It will be possible for a man to pass the examination and still be one of the most objectionable immigrants imaginable... with the oriental, as a rule, the more he is educated, the worse man he is likely to be, from our point of view."(Watson, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 6 September 1901, p.4632-36)

Thank you for making your agenda obvious. FWBOarticle 11:25, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Next, what is your justification for insisting that non-european is used in place of non-white? FWBOarticle 08:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is the standard terminology when discussing this subject. The legislation was phrased in terms of European v non-European, not white v non-white. "White Australia" was a popular term not an official one, as the article makes clear. Adam 09:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Standard terminology? Another google search gave me this.

http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/lookup/encyclopedia/wh/White_Australia_Movement.html

The terms is "white European", which I can accept. Plus the article make it clear that the preference was in order of Anglo-Saxon, Northern European then Southern European. European/NonEuropean distinction obscure this racial nature of the policy. In fact that was the whole point of the use of this distinction. You overlook the fact that the legislation was deliberately phrased in this manner as a cover to deflect criticism from Japan and Britain.

" We want a white Australia and are we to be denied it because we shall offend the Japanese or embarrass His Majestys ministers? I think not . . ." (Hughes, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 12 September 1901, pp. 4822 and 4824)

"White Australia" was not just a "popular term", it was the "standard term" used by the public as well as in the parliamentary debate. "White Australia" was not an official term only in appearence. And that is why the use of European-NonEuropean distinction have to be termed apologist. It appear that you intent to continue this cover. I should also mentione that non-white European were bared by this policy in practice. Therefore, European/NonEuropean distinction is factually incorrect.

Your edits are highly biased and I will continute to correct it. Oh, I'm a Jap living in u.k. And to preempt the matter I should tell you that "what about Japanese history of racism" tactics won't work on me. I don't bother myself with historical revisionism. I have noticed that you did PhD in History. What kind of history do they teach over there? FWBOarticle

---

"what about Japanese history of racism" - what's the matter FWBO? Must mean something if it stirs you into such a knee-jerk response. PMA 07:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is merely an attempt to preempt possible opening of argument in response to "Where are you from, by the way?". You have to realise that Dr Carr (Phd in history) resorted to name calling beforehand for my "alleged" highly opinionated stance, total lack of knwolege in Australian history and atrocious standard in Engrish. When someone resort to name calling, it is easy to oust him/her in argument. FWBOarticle

How did aboriginals fit into the White Australia policy?

How did aboriginals fit into the White Australia policy? --VivaRose

• • • • • How did aboriginals fit into the White Australia policy? --VivaRose

The WAP was an immigration policy, Aboriginal people weren't 'immigrating' to Australia in the late 19th/20th centuries. --Black Dagger 13:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blackbirding

I would like some views on the use of blackbirding. This implies the Kanacks were abducted into piracy. While there is evidence that this did occur, most of the Kanacks were indentured labour. They were contracted for a fixed period on low wages (lower than a European would work for anyway.) The eugenics argument also has a place here. A justification for importing the Kanacks was the theory, strongly supported by the medical profession that Northern Europeans were not physiologically suited for labour in the tropics. This theory lasted well into the 1930s. It of course suited the plantation owners to support this theory with the result that they had a cheap and relatively docile work force.--Porturology 08:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

sorry I meant slavery not piracy.--Porturology 08:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I did a few weeks on this in a history class last year at uni. I think the article actually covers this quite well. Although some Pacific Islanders were brought to Australia as (poorly) paid workers, a fair proportion were tricked into getting onto the boats, and some were forcibly kidnapped. Specifically the term blackbirding only applies to those who were kidnapped ([1]). --bainer (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)