Talk:White Australia policy/Archive 2

Garbled
I plan to delete this: "The main difference is that, in other Western countries, white separatist argument is theoretical, advocated only by the extreme fringe of society, while in Australia, the government, like South African Apartheid actually implemented white separatistism as a defining basis of national identity. Moreover, while post-Apartheid South African identity is undeniably African and multi racial, the racial makeup of Australia is still predominantly white and Australia is somewhat unsure of its identity which is frequently discussed in terms of reconcilation policy toward Australian Aborigines, immigration policy particularly in term of the treatment of refugees or foreign policy toward its non-white neighbours many of them are ex European colonies." As it's nonsense. Other Western Countries?? Hmmm, Germany? USA? no seperatist history? The identity of South Africa is African? thanks for that. Jumps from identity to race. The rest is just verbose and irrelevant Any objections? 198.208.13.221 04:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No objections :) - Eyeresist 06:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Legacy section.
You know, for as long as I've had this page on my watchlist, I've noticed that every second day an anonymous Aussie IP address attempts to remove the 'Legacy' section on this article. Any ideas on how to sort this out? Agnte 11:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * They've resorted to removing it completely after having failed to have this change made, trying several times a day for about two weeks. --bainer (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah i saw that as well... So I take it theres not much to be done if it's just anon IP doing it the whole time? Agnte 11:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * He also likes to insert this content on the Racism page. He signed his name on the talk page here as 'KJ'. Agnte 18:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the anon for 24 hours, hopefully he'll come back more in a spirit to collaborate. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 00:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Citation please
''Australia was not the only nation to have a discriminatory immigration policy. The United States, Canada and New Zealand also had racially restrictive immigration policies in the 19th and early 20th centuries.''

Or rather, does this even belong here? It sounds strikingly apologist.. --24.31.29.171 08:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I agree,

I think the policy was discriminatory in a sense but it is a matter of personal opinion. The article shouldn't state it. I think it should be re written to be more balanced.

Racist to racialist views...
Racist means you are prejudice and hateful towards people because of their skin color, a racialist means that you believe different races have different attributes. I changed the word "racist" to "racialist" views because having racialist views were common at the time. They didnt restrict the immigration policy strictly out of race hate. Please do not change it. Thanks!
 * Dear annonymous. Some people believe that racism victims do not exist. That this is just a conspiracy by colored people who want to demonise kind and humane whites. What do you reckon? We have a new trend here. Racism denial.--tequendamia 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tequendamia,

This is extracted from the article: At this time many people believed that there were deep and innate differences between races.

This is the definition of racialism; that is people feeling that certain races have certain differences and attributes. This is not the same as racism. If I were to acknowledge that the NBA is 80 percent black I can conclude that blacks may be better then whites overall, would that make me racist? I think this view can put me in the category of a racialist, not racist. Racialist views were very common throughout the US, Canada, and Australia. Indeed, some people were racist but overall they were racialist views. Even the own definition stated was racialist and it was switched to racist. I just want to make the article more accurate please do not take it down. Thanks,

JJstroker 21:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All right!--tequendamia 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Much academic work about the White Australia Policy discusses both racism and racialism. Yes, the policy was racialist. This is stating the blindingly obvious. However, the article ought to acknowledge that there is scholarly debate about the extent to which the policy was a reflection of racism within Australian society. In other words, there is an extremely complex relationship between Australian identity, racism and the White Australia Policy.


 * In my view, to go about removing the words 'racist' and all other references to racism in the article (especially without any adequate discussion) is not acceptable. It's POV, it completely oversimplifies the issues at stake and it doesn't reflect current debates about Australian history.


 * I acknowledge that simply re-inserting the word racist may not be an adequate solution either because this too would fail to recognise historical complexities such as class divisions, attempts by political figures to manipulate the populace with xenophobic representations etc. What I'm saying is that the article, as recently edited by JJstroker is not NPOV. It reflects JJstroker's opinion that the WAP was not racist. What it needs is proper citation of sources (preferably academic) - those who argue that it was racist, those who argue it was not and those who acknowledge a degree of complexity in the situation. Apologies for not having the time to undertake this myself. All I can do is suggest where the article needs to go. --Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 00:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it does not reflect my opinion. My opinion is that all personal opinions should be taken out of the article. I feel that stating racism is a personal opinion therefore it should be removed. I want this article to remain accurate. I think most people who read the article will come to the conclusion that the policy could be racist. I feel that we do not need to tell them how to think and guide them to a certain conclusion. I dont have a problem if you gentlemen want to express your viewpoints within the article just as long as its within context and not baised.

JJstroker

Racism Section

 * I changed the article again despite recent edits. I really feel that explaining racialism is more appropriate. However I know that the policy is perceived as racist, so I think the best solution that we can all agree on is adding a Racism section in the article discussing it in a non baised way. My main problem is that I feel saying that it was "racist" is a viewpoint rather then a fact. So I feel that it would be apprioprate to explain how the policy can be seen as racist which would put it in context. Let me all know what you think. ALthough I think the article is already explained very well.

JJstroker 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont think |the insertion really improves the article, and thats even if each assertion was cited. Agnte 05:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The piece added about racism is generic and therefore has no real place here. Also it is clear that the policy was racist, and this is not an issue of perception. Whilst we may have different personal attitudes as regards whetehr we condemn or celebrate racism, that is another matter. looking at the relevant pages as regards the difference between racialism - a set of beliefs - and racism practices - this is properly reflected in the article. I am staring to feel concerned that JJstroker is being disingenuous: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JJstroker#Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany.

I have also added information about non-white transportation to Australia from the UK. Harrypotter@

There was a time during Queen Victoria that Australia was declared empty land (blacks were not regarded as human, I think some would claim that's racialist). As some people might've claimed that blacks were human then they need it to empty Australia for which they started to carried out racial cleaning. The point made by the English men at that time was, empty land therefore no claim of genocide. The thing went out of control and even at the end of 19 th century there was a day when they killed 3,000 aborigenes in one day. The number of blacks killed in one day was a record they aimed to break. About 100 hundred years ago, Australia was created as a federatin in the English chambers. That was a political decisión aimed at preventing other European powers from claiming the land and also to stop the Chinese immigration. When the artificial creation of Australia was signed in London, they started to kill Chinese who have become wealthy in Australia. Just because they were Chinese,(another raciaist decision, Iguess). There will always be denial of all these events, by racist people who believe in their hearts that discrimination is right and God's will. No I'd like to quote myself again:
 * [..]: some people believe that racism victims do not exist. That this is just a conspiracy by colored people who want to demonise kind and humane whites. What do you reckon? We have a new trend here. Racism denial.--tequendamia 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

--tequendamia 01:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a decent range of quotations to be drawn from the Hansard, specifically around the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. Deakin thought that skilled Asian migrants would out-compete existing workers for wages. Barton said "We are guarding the last part of the world in which the higher races can live and increase freely for the higher civilisation." Billy Hughes said "We shall say that we have a white Australia by the only possible and sure way of getting it, namely by absolutely prohibiting the introduction of undesirable aliens." Senator Edward Pulsford was the odd one out in the Parliament, who was particularly opposed to the exclusion of Indians, and said "I look upon the whole of the inhabitants of Asia as my friends," and "I cannot forget that in bygone centuries our ancestors in Great Britain were naked savages, and that the history of the empires of Japan and China run back some 3000 years." Quotes are all extracted here. This range of opinions should be fairly representive of the motives behind the policy. --bainer (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have tighted up the piece a bit - should we include the Queen Victoria proclamation of 1858? and reinserted racist as regards the policy and chamged racist to racialist later on in the section as it relates to ideology. Harrypotter 16:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * QUOTE= Harry Potter "Also it is clear that the policy was racist, and this is not an issue of perception." END QUOTE

Yes, the policy being racist is clear to you. That is a personal opinion. You have to let others draw their own conclusions and keep this article non baised. As for your feelings about the racism section being generic, I made it so you can change it anyway you please. For instance If I were to say that Hitler was evil, I think we can all agree. But just because that is the common viewpoint it doesnt mean I should say it no matter what the view is. I feel that we have to let the reader draw their own conclusions.

JJstroker 21:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I mentioned those quotes from Hansard. They are the people who wrote the policy, and many of them held quite clearly racist views. Including those would illustrate and validate the description of the policy as racist. Opinions of Deakin et al could be put alongside to illustrate that a small minority supported the policy for protectionist reasons, and quotes from Pulsford could be included too to show that an even smaller minority disagreed with having the policy at all. I've not much time now, so if someone else could do that that'd be great. --bainer (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally dont object to posting racist quotes from the people who made the policy. That is great and can give factual information and it lets the reader draw their own conclusions. I just dont like stating it was racist because that is an opinion. Remember we can not give opinions in an encyclopedia we have to let the reader decide things for themselves.

JJstroker 23:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * '"Racism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed "race"."' - '"The White Australia policy was the official policy of all governments and all mainstream political parties in Australia based on excluding non-white people from immigrating to the Australian continent, centred around the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901."' What's the problem? Harrypotter 20:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Racism means to hate people of a different race for no apparent reason on then their race. Racialism is completely different. The policy was clearly racialist. Can this be interpreted as racist? Perhaps but that is up to the reader to decide. I really feel that you are worried and try very hard to put in a political slant towards your viewpoint because you are worried people wont be able to decide for themselves if the policy was racist or not. I think the policy speaks for itself. We dont need to tell the reader that it is racist and state it as a fact because it is a viewpoint. 71.132.16.64 08:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon my ignorance but could somone explain how racialism is completley different from racism? Agnte 19:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely racialism is the foundation of racism. Once racialism is seen as acceptable a gateway to accepting racism is created. for that reason racialism and racism are intrinsically linked.
 * My experience is that "racialism" is a phrase white supremacists use to explain that they're not actually racist. The White Australia policy was purposely conceived for the advantage of the white race and disadvantage of non-whites, therefore is racist. 'Nuff said. - Eyeresist 06:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

racism Was a term coined by Leon Trotsky in 1936 with strong negative connotations. The white Australia policy was established in 1901. In its historical context, the white Australia policy could not have been racist. The term racialist represents a more appropriate definition. I also don't believe excessive emphasis on the term racist is helpful for establishing a neutral point of view. Davo698 14:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Uncited Sources
This paragraph in the article is really horrible. Completely unreferenced, full of weasel words:
 * Many people attribute the 2005 Sydney race riots as a product of a non white immigration policy. It's questioned whether or not certain groups can assimilate in Australian society. Critics of the policy interpret it as a multicultural attack on white European Australia. It’s argued that in order to maintain national sovereignty people must be united through culture, ancestry, religion, etc. Therefore a non white immigration policy can be seen as putting Australia’s sovereignty in jeopardy. Opponents argue that this is non discriminatory and makes a culture rich in diversity while others refute such claims. See multiculturalism.

--Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 00:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of uncited sources, why is the Mark Latham "legacy of White Australia" claim not referenced? I came here looking for an exact page in his book where I could find something to this effect. I have found none and I can't anywhere else on the web at this specific moment. -Guest

Official Policy?
Ok, I don't know about the definition given in this article. White Australia is the popular term used to describe several policies, especially the Immigration restrictions act. NOT an official term.

I have before me a copy of the immigrations restrictions act. and a copy of the news paper article on the topic from Monday, 30 September, 1901.

Bobby1011 08:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not dusputing your changes - but I do think a scan of the newspaper article and the act would improve the article. Is there any way of getting these uploaded? Agnte 09:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "The White Australia policy is a popular term which refers to the policies once held..." I think that the current wording makes it clear that the actual term "White Australia policy" isn't one that was actually used in acts or in policy documents, but a popular label applied to certain laws and policies, and as such I don't see any problem. The newspaper article I don't have, but you can see the original copy of the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 here. --bainer (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly, the picture has been uploaded. As for my problem with the formulation, it read: The White Australia policy was the official policy of all governments.... That didn't make it very clear to me what was meant especially when the article also included the following: the expression "White Australia Policy" was never in official use. An official policy that wasn't in official use? That's the definiton of a contradiction in terms. Bobby1011 03:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian government did not explicitly use the term "White Australia" to avoid legal and diplomatic trouble with Britain and to some extent Japan. It was a de facto title of official policy which were used in the discussion of parliament as well as in print media. Clarification of this matter would help. Otherwise, it could be spinned to imply that there were no such thing as "white australia" policy. FWBOarticle 05:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Racist/Racialist NPOV
I believe I can solve racist/racialist edit war problem with NPOV disambiguation. FWBOarticle

I think the problem of edit war is partly due to desire of some to censor anything which makes Australia looks bad. These views exist and somewhat mainstream as can be seen in my debate with Dr Carr in Archive 1. Therefore it should have its place in the front page provided that it attribution/context is correct. Oh, feel free to correct my Engrish. FWBOarticle

The "racialist" view of WAP do exist. So as far as NPOV goes, it deserve inclusion in the article. Problem is that generally accepted meaning of racism refers to both racialism and racism. If one read the history of racism, one can see that, historically racialism is a part of racism. This racism/racialism distinction is made only within white separatism. Therefore, NPOV require that the word "racialism" is kosher only if the distinction is attributed to such perspective. As far as general public goes, racialism is a form of racism. Keep it NPOV. FWBOarticle

Those wishing to insert 'racialist' instead of 'racist' with regard to the WAP ought to read the Wikipedia section on 'racialism'. In short, racialism is 'scientific racism', as opposed to 'popular racism'. The latter meaning is what the advocates of 'racialism' are objecting to. However, one only needs to skim the pages of a book such as 'The Making of White Australia' by Don Gibb [Victorian Historical Association, 1973] to see that the Australian parliamentarians who framed and passed the WAP were not scientific about their racism in any meaningful sense of the word. Therefore, to be entirely accurate, I'd suggest the word 'political' ought to be inserted prior to the word 'racism' / 'racist' in the Wikipedia sections on Australia's WAP. Alternatively, the term 'White Supremacist' could be inserted instead of 'racist' - the parliamentary transcripts in Gibb's useful book, while not full of racial hatred, are certainly dominated by the view that a) races exist, b) some races are better than others c) the White British race is superior and d) mixing Whites with other races will lower standards - i.e. racial purity is the most desirable way to create a superior civilisation in Australia. There are other views expressed, but these views are the dominant ones.

(Ian, Melbourne)


 * Racism is simply the belief that there are races. Gosh 99.9999999% of the Earth are racist now. What is generally referred to as 'racism' is in fact 'racial discrimination' or xenophobia or simply contempt for other races. OzWoden (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tasmanians not exterminated
The article used to state that the natives of Tasmania were exterminated. This is not true. Although the Australian government tried to make everyone think that Truganini was the last person of Tasmanian Native descent,(Is that rascist?) there are plenty of people with Tasmanian Native descent, who even have their own blogs and websites.

Aleksei 09:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the extermination of Tasmanian abologinal cluture is complete. Not a single trace of culture remain. No language, no custom, no anything. That firstly qualify as legal definition of genocide which include termination of people as cultural group. Secondly, I know its a bit of sensitive issue of political correctness but using a drop of blood as the basis of identity politics is bit pushing it. Actual extent of survival in DNA term is probably helpful. Among those who are decentant, what the proportion of native blood in their DNA? I hear that that is another very PC issue in Taz because some who claim to be part of native heritage may not actually have heritage in DNA sence. FWBOarticle


 * Hi again Yoji. The idea that Truganini was the "last Tasmanian Aboriginal" was a convenient one for the racist ideologies of the early 20th century, but it's simply not true. Neither is it true to say that nothing remains of the Pallawa culture, and I'm sure this would be disputed vigorously by the likes of Michael Mansell. DNA is a separate issue, but there is no doubt that many people are able to document their descent from pre-settlement Palawah people, by way of people who were deported/resettled in the Bass Strait islands during the mid-19th century. Grant65 | Talk 13:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it is indeed scientifically possible to determine if someone is a decendant of a particular individual. And if someone is 1/32 decent, the correct statement is that this particular person is about 3% aboliginal and 97% Caucasioan (assuming all intermarriage were with white.) Moreover, does anyone who claim to be a Tasmaina aboligiens know anything which they can trace to Tasmaina Aboriginal "cluture" or "tradition"? Any new age hippy can make near identical claim of "spiritual connection to land". In England, there are people who claim to be druids but what they do has zero relevance to what historical druid did. Given that there is no one who is a Tasmaina Aboriginal in any recognisable sence from what they actually were, it is not inaccurate to describe Tasmainan Aboriginal "culture" to be extinct. At least, it is a valid in term of antholopologcical POV. In DNA/scientific sense, the degree of survival is purly factual. So it is NPOV if someone say "I'm 1/32 Tasmainan Aboliginal" but i think it is more of identity politics to say "I'm Tasmaian Aboligines". At least, it is NPOV to properly disambiguate the respective claims of Tasmainan Aboliginal groups and the likes of Michael Mansell (whoever he is). It is totally kosher for an American of Japanese decent to say "I'm a Japanese American".  But if this person say "I'm a Japanese", this person will be ridiculed by "Japanese".  FWBOarticle
 * Michael Mansell is a Palawah leader. According to Australian government statistics, on June 30, 2001, the estimated indigenous population of Tasmania was 17,400, or 3.7% of the total population. I wonder how many realise that this actually higher than the proportion of indigenes in Australia as a whole!!!  As far as I'm aware there is no genetic marker for Palawah, as opposed to mainland Aborigines. And I doubt that it would be possible to establish one now. However, there is no compelling economic or other reason for many mainland Aborigines to move to Tasmania. As for culture or tradition, there is no generally accepted definition of what such things are, so we can't say with any degree of certainty whether or not a particular culture or tradition exists. It is enough to say that people claim Palawah descent and that they claim to be the living represenatatives of the culture/tradition; any further statements are bound to be seen as controversial and/or arrogant for one reason or another. Grant65 | Talk 10:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"I doubt that it would be possible to establish one now". This statement is incorrect. It is indeed possible to establish exact female ancestory using Mitochondrion analysis. Tracing of male ancestory is less precise but still possible using Y chromosone. And when I say less precise, I'm not talking about several generations. Therefore, the statement, "It is enough to say that people claim Palawah descent", would be patently incorrect in term of science but may not be so in term of identity politics or political correctness. What I understand is that Tasmainan aboligines are refusing to do DNA marking. This might indicate that they may not like the idea of finding out what such testing would reveal.

You also have stated that "As for culture or tradition, there is no generally accepted definition of what such things are". Say, I accept this statement as "truth". Then question is what exact "practices" current Tasmaina Aboligines claim to be be their culture and tradition. I agree that there is no "precise" or "overall" definition of culture or tradition, but at least it have to be something of a practice or knowledge, be it language, religion, cooking, music or dress. Second question is, if they do have certain "practice(s)", what is the "history" of it. Has it been continuously passed on from historical Palawah tribe or is it reinvented, as in the case of modern British Druid. If all practice of historical Palawah tribe is lost, then at least from POV of antholopology, "historical" Palawah (tasmanian aboligines) are dead. Of course, modern decendant of Palawah can claim or invent new culture or identity. But if they somewhat try to imply that their modern reinvention have some "historical" connection, then such claim would be verifiably false. If they claim "spiritual" connection, or they make "you can't totally disprove it so my claim must be true" argument, then, such claim is beyond verification/falsification and should be attributed as such. Oh, btw, after living in both Britain and Australia, I found Australia more culturally British than Britain is (with nicer weather, of course). But that would be another POV minefield. ;D FWBOarticle
 * The fact is that many people have documented descent, through the female line, from Palawah people. They are descendants of people who were exiled to the Bass Strait islands. And I repeat: I don't believe that a genetic marker for Palawah, as distinct from mainland Aborigines can be established, because they were not sufficiently distinct populations in terms of DNA. I would be interested to see any evidence/references to the contrary.


 * As for culture: what you are saying would be like me making a blanket assertion that traditional Japanese culture is dead, because it has been removed from the economic (peasant agriculture) and political (feudal) context in which it emerged. But I wouldn't be so bold as to say such a thing. Grant65 | Talk 23:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a reference for Genealogical DNA test. As of culture, many of Japanese aglicultural tradition is indeed dead. However, making a "blanket" assertion that traditional japanese culture is dead is categorically incorrect because many other different elements of tradition/culture such as language are not dead. It like saying if my appendix dies, then I'm dead. On the other hand, it is often assumed that if brain dies, someone is considered as dead.  So something like death of language is often regarded as death of culture.  Anyway, if the entire categories of traditions are dead (i.e. every part of bodies are dead), making a blanket asertion that traditional Tasmanian Aboligines (or Japanese) culture is dead is correct. And saying so would not be considered as bold. Anyway, what kind of practices TA people claim to be their culture or tradition? And what is the history of such practices? FWBOarticle


 * I understand the concept of a mitochondrial DNA test! The problem is in distinguishing between "Palawah genes" and (e.g.) "Koori genes". As for Palawah cultures past and present, I'm no expert and you would have to ask them and/or anthropologists. Personally I do know members of other (mainland) Australian Aboriginal groups who are offended by the suggestion that they are somehow not "genuine" indigenes because they aren't living a traditional lifestyle, and the whole idea of lecturing people about their cultural practices vis-vis their ancestors' cultural practices seems both ironic and oppressive to me. Grant65 | Talk 14:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ?? Current Palawa TAs are originate from a single individual, Mannalargenna. DNA mark up would clearly provide information regarding who is or who is not decendant of one particular individual. As of my statement causing offense, I simply pointed out that any claim or POV should have proper POV attribution and factual clarification. Wikipedia should list any practice or tradition practiced by TA and it's history. Depending on the quantity and quality of surviving tradition, some readers might conclude that historical culture of TA tribes are indeed dead.  Others may conclude otherwise. If anyone is offended by Wikipedian edit which attribute TA's claim as a POV, that is not a business of Wikipedia. It is esbatlished fact that full blood TAs has gone extinct while in DNA term TA are not extinct. In cultural sence, it is accurate to describe "almost all" historical TA tradition has been lost. Of course current TAs can create new tradition, culture or identity. Wikipedia's job is to make proper attribution. If one claim that TAs is not extinct, it should be clearly stated that, such claim are in term of DNA. The term genocide in original formulation refer to both race (DNA) and ethincity (culture). Political correctness of TA (race/culture/tradition) being extinct or not is none of Wikipedia's business. FWBOarticle

Found it by myself. Now the question is, if someone can do this, are they TA by culture? FWBOarticle
 * Belatedly, yes, but not for the reason that you might think. In the broad sense, I would say that Palawah culture is as Palawah person does. We might ask what remains of traditional Celtic culture in Britain. The answer would be "not much"; nevertheless the population of parts of Britain are dominated by their descendants, who are not cultureless; nor is the culture of the U.K. homogeneous. There are some people who refer to "genocide" as having been comitted against the Celts but I don't think this reflects historical reality.


 * Second, not all present day Tasmanian Aborigines claim descent from Mannalargenna. There are many who have a preponderance of descent from mainland Australian Aboriginal groups and there are others who claim to have escaped the Black Line, either by hiding or by integrated into settler society before that time. BTW, "full blood" is not a term that is used by scientists or social scientists, Aboriginal or otherwise, even though there are people who could or do claim to be "full blood" in some parts of Australia, as it tells us nothing of significance about individuals.


 * Third, while genocide was attempted against the Palawah, it failed and people bearing the genes and culture of the Palawah survived. To say they abandoned that traditional culture wholesale, when non-Palawah recorded relatively little about that culture in its heyday, seems like a circular argument. Grant65 | Talk 15:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * if Palawah language is extinct, how is it that the late Jim Bacon, premier of tasmania, received a eulogy in the Palawah language? how is it that i can walk into any tasmanian aboriginal centre and see examples of Palawah language all over the walls?  this doesn't sound like an extinct language and culture to me.

Racism
While i don't disagree with the view that the WAP was racist you can't condemm individuals for being from their cultural environment rather than your cultural environment. History always has a context whether it be the time of Ceasar or the Swinging Sixties. PMA 16:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we've already been through this above. --bainer (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes we have. I am unaware that anyone has been condemned for being racist. It is merely stating that to be the case without any moral overtone. Many advocates of WAP were clearly proud to be racist.Harrypotter 14:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You can condem people who supported WAP for being not "fair". :D FWBOarticle


 * Sorry, let me clarify. Many of us would condemn people for being racist, but it is not the place to do so on a wikipedia page. And that has not b een done on the WAP page.Harrypotter 18:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We can't condemn, FWBOarticle. We could, however, quote other prominent people who have condemned. --bainer (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think PMA are making his statement in term of Wikipedia policy. And I was making my statement in term of PMA's claim, hence my :D smiley. Sorry for wasting storage space including this one. ;) FWBOarticle
 * i hope you're not accusing me of being racist - i despise bigotry in all its forms due to my own experiences because of my disability - i just wanted to point out that history always has a context no matter what the era and that it was a very different culture and society in 1901 than in 2006 so criticising them for not acting to modern beliefs and culture is not right. PMA 08:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the big deal?
So the Australians want to rule their own country and not foreigners out breed, out vote, and repress the white people in Australia. What's wrong with that?Cameron Nedland 21:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with that. I feel that the article has been written very well and is presented from a factual NPOV. Do you feel the article is baised?

Jerry Jones 05:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just have a look at your post, Cameron. Equating "Australian" with white. Smells like the Policy itself... The post is nice line in spurious argument wrapped in poor grammar and hyperbole. What do they teach you in Kansas? 138 09:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't judge the whole state based on what I do.Cameron Nedland 19:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of a clip I saw from an old Aboriginal comedy show ("Blackout") on the ABC. A couple of Aboriginal men climb a rock and see Cpt. Cook and company sailing ashore in silly pointed hats. One blackfella looks at the other and says: "You know, I think in the long run we'd be better off with a more restrictive immigration policy." - Eyeresist 07:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's funny. I saw a very similar comic in a local newspaper with Native Americans.Cameron Nedland 19:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Superior civilisation? Isn't making an assumption like that POV? Don't you think that they wanted to keep their european way of life? Can someone explain how that as an opinion is racist? *I couldn't put this under Racism, can someone move it?*

Southern Europeans are not white???
I've removed this sentence twice:

In Australian Society, Southern Europeans may not be regarded as 'White' by many people...

as it was an unsourced addition and it is complete hooey (the opposite of 'wog' is 'anglo', not 'white', for starters). Contentious claims like this should be cited, or nuked on sight. Find me any mainstream Australian expressing this opinion and I will post to the internet an animated .gif of me eating my hat. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 07:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Social opinion on Southern Europeans
The word `Wog' is an English word dating back to the 1920s. My Oxford dictionary (1999 hardback edition) defines it as `a person who is not white' LITERALLY in that wording. In the UK the word `wog' is generally used for more darker skinned people especially black Carribbeans. In Australia it is a mis-nomer from the original definition as here it is often used to identify Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners(are they classed as `white'?-lol!) and anyone of Mediterranean appearance or origin. Most white (North-West European) Australians that I know would not regard a Southern European as `white' IF he/she looked dark.

Look up the word `Chocko' in Wikipedia's `list of ethnic slurs' and it was originally used to identify people of Mediterranean extraction especially Maltese! I remember at the private school I went to, many students of Portuguese, Greek, Maltese and Southern Italian origins were victims of racism. Although rarely occuring some of the exceptionally dark ones were dubbed in an exaggerated way as being `black' by these bullying bigots.

Prior to World War 2, the Departmet of Immigration during the White Australia policy would tighten the bolts on accepting many Southern Europeans, especially those who looked swarthy (I recall this on an ABC 4 Corners documentery called `Admission Impossible' about the White Australia Policy which aired in 1996).

I do not deny that there are many fair white looking people in Southern Europe despite popular stereotypical perception, but consider the following scenario: If an Australian of ENGLISH Anglo-Saxon origin calls an Irish, German or French a `Mick', `Kraut', or `Frog' respectively then it is racist, but most people would not react to it to it with shock and disgust. If the same Anglo Australian referrred to Southern Europeans as being `Wops', `Spicks' or `Dagos', then there would be a different reaction - Why? Because there is a difference.

The Mediterranean Caucasoid phenotype can be found ALL AROUND THE MEDITERRANEAN in Southern Europe, West Asia and (to a lesser degree under varying hues) parts of Nothern India and North Africa. Do you `Mr Randwicked' think that people from the latter three regions would be regarded as white? I did not include the statement about Southern Europeans as `non-white' based on scientific fact, nor is it my opinion (undeniably they are ALL Caucasoid). It was simply based on the social experience I recall and what I have read. Most people I know an in general society immediately percieve `White' as a European of Anglo-Saxon, Nordic, Celtic, Germanic or other kindred origin or appearance. 22 May 2006
 * I'm sure I've read that many non-English speaking Europeans were excluded from Australia under the White Australia policy. They had to undergo a language test, and on the off-chance that they might be competent in English, the test was in Inuit, or some such. However, the post-WWII diaspora saw an influx of people who were often refered to as "wogs", not only from the Mediterranean but also Eastern Europe. From this, we could argue that the WAP was racist but also "culturalist".
 * I think things have changed in Australia to the extent that culturally-assimilated people of Mediterranean origin are automatically regarded as generically European, therefore "white". - Eyeresist 07:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There has never been an English language test in Australia that wasn't in English, so I don't know where the above remark came from, other than a POV angle perhaps. Furthermore, I concur with the second above poster, Australia does have a more easy going attitude towards 'racial slurs' and they are a part of the common tongue.  At present I'm white enough to pass as albino, but as a child through my teens I was forever in the sun and nicknamed 'choc' by my mates.  My more chocolatey appearing mates were then deemed double-choc.  No one had a problem with it.  Likewise, mick, kraut, frog, are all acceptable terms although 'racial slurs' are not seen as such by the average reasonable person.


 * The 'racism' element of the article is negated simply by the fact that contemporary society at the time considered it acceptable, thus terming it as 'racism' or article header material of 'racism' is a logical fallacy (I'd insert the Wiki link to the policy on 'hindsight', but I don't remember it exactly or how to do it!) and potentially POV pushing. It was accepted policy and understood by contemporary society to be a means to retain the same cultural, political, religious and ethical standards expected by the populace.  If one were to look at the nation article one would see that these are elements that make a nation, not just a common patch of soil.  211.30.71.59 04:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course there haven't been any English tests not in English. But the dictation tests didn't have to be in English. The dictation test under the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 involved a "passage of fifty words in length in an European language" at the choice of the officer administering the test. English could be used, but so could any other European language.
 * As to the point about racism, see above discussion. The majority of those who introduced the policy did so on racial grounds, easily outnumbering a minority who supported it on protectionist grounds, and an even smaller minority who were opposed to the policy because it was racist. --bainer (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hooey?
What the hell is `hooey'? an Afro-Semitic Maltese word?
 * "Hooey" = nonsense. - Eyeresist 07:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking about a reworking. Please comment before I proceed.
Hello to all contributors to this article.

I'm considering spending some time reworking this article. My reasons for doing this are as follows:
 * The White Australia Policy is highly significant to the historical identity of multicultural Australia.
 * The article lacks proper references. Specifically:
 * The current article only contains 3 external links.
 * The current article is devoid of footnote style references.
 * The only references given read more like a "Further Reading" list.


 * The article contains multiple very large paragraphs which make it hard to read.
 * The article (particularly the "Origins" section) has an anecdotal, rather than progressive authoritative feel to it (as though selected factoids have been crammed in). Yes, I'm eying the Lawson quote for removal.
 * I think that there are many authoritative sources of information which are not directly referenced and are not completely reflected by the content of this article. Specifically:
 * Abolition of the White Australia Policy
 * Australian Multicultural Policy
 * Evolution of Australian Multicultural Policy
 * Racial Discrimination Act 1975
 * Multiculturalism and the Australian Constitution
 * The Department of Immigration links further link to a few other pages. Similarly Austlii has a few other Immigration Acts which are relevant.


 * I think the "Legacy" section should be split into 3 sections:
 * Current ethnic distributions
 * Laws and policies since abolition relating to multiculturalism (i.e. Anti-discrimination laws and Pacific Solution)
 * Contemporary references to the Policy which are not literally related (i.e. Media or political comments about race riots, new policies)


 * Actual quotes from Ministers should be used to give the current official opinion of the Policy. eg:
 * Howard hits out at 'jihad' Muslims (Includes his anti-Asian quote from 1988 and his acceptance that racism got his dropped from Opposition leader)
 * Pauline Hanson's Maiden Speech (Includes the quote:"Japan, India, Burma, Ceylon and every new African nation are fiercely anti-white and anti one another. Do we want or need any of these people here? I am one red-blooded Australian who says no and who speaks for 90% of Australians.")
 * I could reference Drew Fraser but I think he's a polemicist (deliberately trying to stir up controversy).

I also think that the current article seems to be serving as a magnet for issues which are closer to "A History of Racism in Australia". While I don't think this is completely inappropriate, an awareness of the distinction between the de facto Policy and broader racism should be carried through the article.

All thoughts welcomed. Mattisgoo 13:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This article IS a bit of a monster at the moment. Your ideas for revision sound good. I'm just a little worried about too much emphasis on the "Legacy" section as opposed to the main subject of the article (ironically, my only contribution has been to the Legacy section). Best of luck, and I look forward to seeing what you do. - Eyeresist 07:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've done the rewrite I wanted to see. Biggest changes:
 * Introduction simplified and almost completely rewritten.
 * History prior to Federation almost completely rewritten with more detailed history, fewer quotes and more references.
 * Fleshed out the 1945 to 1978 history a little, although largely kept the text of this section.
 * Split legacy into two: Population Distribution and Political Legacy. Included official government policy to start this section. Collapsed peripherally related racism topics down to a set of links along with a disclaimer (these topics not literally related).
 * I'm already regretting the Howard and Hanson quotes but I do think that they are the most relevant "legacy" quotes on the topic.
 * I think that two things are missing:
 * Connecting this article with similar racial changes in US during the 50's and 60's.
 * A quote from Whitlam or Fraser from the 70's on why the policy is being dismantled.
 * Mattisgoo 04:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved this to the bottom of the page. --bainer (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mattisgoo, I reverted your edits. They were reverted because you inserted use of the term racist which is POV. We had a massive edit war and debate on the talk page on how to solve the dispute and we all reached an agreement to not make use of the term "racist" as POV and you changed it. "Australia's racist history" "and this racist policy" etc is an opinion. You also removed a significant amount of information without a reason. You may restore your edits and I wont revert them but please disregard inserting the term racist because it is POV and directly violates the agreement reached on the talk page. If I may make some recommendations to your edits:

Initially born out of British nationalism and later fuelled by anti-Chinese sentiment during the gold rush of the 1850's

Omit use of the term racism.

+In modern Australian politics and media, the term White Australia Policy is typically used metaphorically to refer to Australia's history

Remove racist history and just put history. This follows our agreement and doesn't insert POV. The other edits were fine but please just do not remove important information as well.

71.131.205.216 01:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, this is blocked user -Will Beback 04:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, so you bought a copy of Windschuttle's White Australia Policy. Feel free to add in material about the "academic" debate if you want, but don't simply undo the changes. The article was previously full of nonsense and had no sources, and Mattisgoo's changes are a good improvement.
 * To deal with some of the specific issues, the context in which the word "racist" is used in the article is entirely appropriate - it appears only in the lead to describe the way in which contemporary politics and the media uses the term "White Australia policy". The term "racism" is used to describe a set of attitudes towards Chinese immigrants, which again is entirely appropriate and accurate. --bainer (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Caption problem
I have a problem with the caption "Falling birth-rate of native Australians". Unless it refers to Australian aborigines, it should be changed to "Falling birth-rate of white Australians". If it refers to native-born Australians as compared to recent immigrants, then it should be renamed to "Falling birth-rate of native-born Australians". --  Миборовский  03:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By "native Australians", it means Australian-born citizens, as opposed to foreign-born. Since Australian Aborigines are always referred to as Aborigines (or Indigenous persons), rather than "natives", I wouldn't think it would cause any confusion. Could we have some more opinions on this, please? - Eyeresist 07:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Australian aborginals are native Australians in the same vein that American-Indians are Native Americans. There was a movement which ascribed European-Australians the name 'native australians', but this was based in the latter half of the 19th century. The caption should be changed to "Falling birth-rate of locally-born Australians". Black-Velvet 09:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Legacy
I'm going to open up a can of worms like has rarely been seen before doing this...

A number of leading figures in the Labour Movement from Beazley downwards have recently been complaining about "jobs going to immigrants while Australian's children cant get jobs."

Thoughts? --RaiderAspect 05:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard anyone in the Australian Labor Party (get your title and spelling right!) express such opinions. Possibly it was pointed out that due to a "skills shortage" in Australia (for whatever reasons), we are having to take in skilled migrants to make up for the shortfall. - Eyeresist 07:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Labour movement is often said to have a political wing (e.g the Labor Party) and an industrial wing (e.g the Australian Council of Trade Unions). RaiderAspect's use of the title and spelling seem fine to me. ntennis 08:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ntennis. Eyeresist, here's a reference, I can get more if you like.



--RaiderAspect 06:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"See also:"
...fear(!) What does that mean? Medico80 18:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Nationalism
How many people here know about ethnic nationalsim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Htra0497 (talk • contribs).

hi
The white Australian Policy is a law that was in forced in the 1880's to stop migrants from entering Australia. It started in the British Nationalism and then later on got fuelled by anti-Chinese racism during the gold rush in the 1850's.

The Immigration Restriction Act was a decision of the Parliament of Australia which limited immigration to Australia and formed some basic rules. Illegal immigrants could be shipped out of Australia and immigrants could take a dictation test to become an Australian citizen.

bye


 * Looks like someone has the NSW School Certificate prescribed "Australian History" propaganda firmly planted in their heads. Just vomit up that garble in your test and you'll get full marks. The far-left history teachers love it (so thats most of them). OzWoden (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Native born Australians?
Quote:
 * Given that current Australian birth rates are below levels required for population replacement, it is possible that, with declining birth rates compensated by immigration, there may be fewer native-born Australians than immigrants by 2100.

Aren't you native born if you are born in Australia? I don't believe half the population will be born outside Australia by 2100, but perhaps half will have no ancestors who lived in Australia in 2007. So what does that mean?--Niels Ø (noe) 10:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Very misleading. Rydal 08:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

AUSTRALIA IS STILL A RACIST COUNTRY
In Australian society, if a person is not Anglo-Celtic, Germanic or Northern European, then they ARE NOT AUSTRALIAN. Not only that, people who are not of that ancestry are told not to think that they are Austrlalian. It's like America in the 50s. Instead of `what's your ethnic background?' people here ask `What nationality are you?'' to anyone who doesn't look Nordic.


 * In fact many middle-eastern, pacific islander, asian appearanced people ask that question to people who are white. Also many people in Australia confuse the terms nationality and race/ethnicity as though they are one and the same. This is from personal experience.
 * Many of these same people consider themselves as not being Australian. No one tells them to think they are not Australian. They have some vague gang-like notion that they have "XYZ-pride" (where XYZ stands for their ancestral country of origin or their skin colour). OzWoden (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"No specific official policy"?
I wish to question the accuracy of the opening sentence which says there was "no specific official policy" that was called the White Australia policy. I believe at least the Australian Labor Party actually did have a specific policy by that name. Possibly other parties did also. Anyone care to comment?  Lester  21:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no specific official policy. There was no "White Australia Policy Act 1901", nor was there a "White Australia Department". There were various pieces of legislation to restrict non-white immigration, colloquially and in common speech referred to as the "White Australia Policy". Michael talk 22:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying there was a specific law, like an Act of 1901, but I understood there was official party policy that was known at the time by that name. I thought other Wikipedians might be familiar with this. I'll see if I can find a reference. Lester  22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are quotes all over the place of Labor politicians using the term 'White Australia' to describe their policy during the period between 1900 and 1960. (Example) After 1960 there seems to be somewhat of a retraction or backtrack on using the term 'White Australia', and the Labor Party stopped using the term. Still, history is history, and the Labor party has to live with its history, even though it later retracted that policy. 'White Australia' was not the name of legislation, but it was definitely the name of policy used by politicians. There is enough justification to remove the first sentence of the article. Lester  22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Essentially the change occurred when the academic left started to become influential in the ALP in the 1960s. It's worthy of note that Calwell was unhappy about Whitlam becoming PM because he knew Whitlam would undo what remained of the policy (which he in fact did). There's some funny stories from the Tonkin ALP government (1971-1974) about the premier, an old warhorse, and several of his ministers who were of both a younger generation and a newer way of thinking, I'm sure that happened in most states. As for the wording, it was used before, during and after - it's common for something to have one official name that is almost never used, and an unofficial name which is almost always used, even by those in officialdom. Orderinchaos 14:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting facts you provide, Orderinchaos. I wish there were some references so it could be added to the article. I think the opening sentence could be changed to reflect that it was commonly known as the White Australia policy, politicians referred to it as thus, and the Labor Party had the words "White Australia Policy" in their books. Of course, Labor has rejected it fully now, but history should be told. Lester  06:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An anonymous IP editor just removed the Fact tag from the first sentence of this article, without any explanation. No reference supplied to support that position, even though a reference has been produced to support the opposite position, that there really was official party policy called 'White Australia'.  Lester  13:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)