all white Australia - immigration nation

I have been watching this documentary 3 times, i want to know what Australians and Kiwis think about this media product from Qatar?

[video=youtube;TX6x28dnPVE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX6x28dnPVE[/video]

 

Australian officials thought that it was necessary to ban Asian immigration for the sake of preventing racial problems and a similar situation developed in the same period in California, where there were pogroms against the Chinese community. After Chinese labourers were introduced in the convict era, there was a lot of agitation amongst the miners who had to compete with them, which resulted in violent clashes between Chinese and white miners at the gold field in Victoria in 1857. When the White Australia Policy was implemented, there were around 29,000 ethnic Chinese in Australia, who were allowed to stay despite the all-white immigration policy.

[video=youtube;8ZO6d0VT7gQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZO6d0VT7gQ[/video]

 

Its not from Qatar, its from Australia. It was produced by SBS - the Special Broadcasting Service - a government funded network set up decades ago to provide programming for people from non-English speaking backgrounds. While it has broadened out somewhat since then, it does still have a lot of programming for that demographic (including in indigenous languages). It also runs a radio network mostly made up of programs in other languages - a truly bewildering range of languages, in fact.

The program is from 2011. I watched it at the time but don't recall the detail. I'll try to give it a quick watch if I get the time, though I suspect this thread will be troll infested by then and thus not a platform for adult discussion.

Non-white immigration to Australia was a multi-faceted issue. In the C19th & up to the mid-C20th white Australians held broadly similiar views of non-whites as pretty much the rest of the Western World. The difference was that we felt physically cut off from the 'white' world. That had an impact on immigration.

There was also a 'utopian' & political element to all this. Many people who came here hoped to escape the structural restrictions of Europe - class, politics, economics - to create a more egalitarian society. An important aspect of that was the fight for good working conditions. Australia was a leader in the '8 hour day' movement and produced the first elected Labour Party government in the world in 1904 (also a leader in women's rights). There was a fear among some people - entirely justified by some events - that the wealthy strata of society would quite happily import cheap foreign labour to undermine wages and conditions. Part of the motivation in banning non-whites was driven by this, and it remained a consideration until the 'white Australia policy' was ended (by a Labour government) in the early 70s. It should be said that the policy wasn't as strict by that point as it had been, and some migrants from Asia & the Middle East were already in Australia.

 

Some observations...

Firstly the program extols the manner in which way government lead the changes.
Almost gleeful on the ruse of filming Balts for the news reels whilst importing other people.
This can be veiwed as leadership of an unwilling people to a more enlightened position or undemocratic deceit of the people who elected them.

Secondly it was not initially primarily driven by the desire to be multicutural but by an elite fear that an unpopulated continent would be indefensible. Better to let some people in then lose the entire country. In hindsight the fear of invasion (a very powerful driver in the Australian subconcious) was totally over blown, even the Japanese were not planning an invasion of Australia and from the end of WW2 to this day the only power capable of a succesfull invasion reamins the USA.

 

Mate I remember the time when we were very afraid of China and it was a common belief that if China started marching 4 abreast there would be enough people to march across the Ocean and invade Australia - and it was believed!!

Now of course we know that if they started marching four abreast into Australia's top end all that would happen is we would end up with some very fat Crocs!!
I have seen a change in attitude over the years - and yes there are still racist (pauline) diehards (hanson) but there is no where near the racism that was around when I grew up

Thing was - we did not even REALISE how racist we were.

I remember when the Italian immigrants were the butt of many many jokes and derided for being different

Then it was Vietnamese, then the Chinese then Muslim and African and..........

I KNOW multiculturalism has helped our indigenous australians more than you could ever imagine, When it was a "White Australia" the country was divided into black and white and if you were black it was no good pretending to be white so why bother?

Now they grow up with kids from every colour on earth and it is no longer "black and white" but better they see that achievement is NOT about skin color

 

What was unusual about the White Australia Policy was that it also banned Southern Europeans such as Greeks and Italians. Prejudices associated with the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 still can be felt in Australian society. When I was attending an anthropology course in Australia, the lecturer said that Greeks weren't considered white, presuming that I was a Greek immigrant. I had an impression that Australia's multiculturalism was on a slippery slope when the 2005 Cronulla riots broke out and racial tensions were so intense when I was there. This explosive situation in Australian society pushes the government to get tougher on asylum seekers and it must have been much worse in the 19th century, when white Australians sympathised with the Klan in America.

 

It was a shameful period in our history and one I would like to think is diminishing

 

What, you want Oz to be more like Sweden? And you a female??

 

Those bans were very far from absolute. Italians & Greeks migrated to Australia in the C19th & continued to do so throughout the C20th - including the period pre-WW2. There were strict limits during the late 20s, but even then over 1000 per year could immigrate.

Some yes, some no. Mostly no. There are still people with prejudices about certain groups, but many less than there were even 20 years ago. Two of the top immigrant groups now are Chinese & Indian. They sometimes experience prejudice, but it isn't commonplace.

Cronulla was an isolated incident - really. A lot more to do with local issues in Sydney than some great societal problem. Nothing like it has happened in the 10 years since. There is no 'explosive situation'. I spend most of my week in the company of non-whites from a variety of groups. They aren't living in fear or rushing back to their nations of origin.

There have always been people who were unhappy with 'multiculturalism' and there probably always will be. There are variations of this is every society with a decent amount of immigration or ethnic minorities.

The asylum seeker issue is ugly, but it also isn't as simple as it is portrayed. Australia actually has one of the largest refugee resettlement programs in the world. We don't warehouse large numbers of people the way parts of Europe have, but the people we take generally end up as citizens. For contrast, there are third generation Turkish-Germans who are still not citizens.

The asylum seekers we are detaining offshore are those who came by boat. While I disagree strongly with the manner in which they are treated, I support the decision not to grant them refugee status. For me the reason is simple - people will die if maritime arrivals continue and those deaths will be on us. The Government doesn't care about this and just milks fear of 'invasion' to get votes, but the policy does save lives. Since it was re-started numbers coming by boat & dying at sea have dropped precipitously.

We certainly have issues with race & ethnicity in Australia, but we have done remarkably well for a society that went from being virtually all white in 1945 to a society where virtually every nation & major ethnic groups was represented two generations later. We have actually had many fewer integration problems than Europe. I tend to think this is because 'blood and soil' nationalism doesn't run as deep here. There are a few 'white trash' types who try to act like their parents having sex in the right country makes them special, but that is a reflection on them rather than Australia. With the exception of indigenous Australians none of us have been here more than 230 odd years, and most of us a lot, lot less time than that (I am a relatively rare example of a 'First Fleeter' ). As a result our sense of identity is less to do with ethnicity & a longstanding presence than it is about a preparedness to contribute to the society. Virtually everyone does, so it works fairly well.

 

you post is very close to what i think, and with all respect SBS did a terrible job, it look like a typical Soviet propaganda, without any time perspective and totally black - and white, simple question, correct me if i am wrong, but only Australia and NZ have succeed to create democratic and developed countries in the region. it´d be great of they compere Australia today and historicity with Indonesia , Malaysia or PNG for instance
.

 

I don't see the relevance of that comparison to the program. It is about Australian immigration & Australian society. It is about the standards we set for ourselves. Don't see what a comparison to any regional nation would have contributed to the program.

I'll have to re-watch the program, but I don't recall it being anything like your 'Soviet propaganda' claim.

 

Yes I am and I live in a rural and remote community where we play "Where in the world are you from" quite happily.

 

Mate - for anything to be propangda you actually have to have people looking at it and SBS did not get it's nickname of "Sex before Soccer" for nothing. Although it has a following it has nowhere near the audience figures of the other stations running at around 6% of the viewing population

 

Good info here. I think it's also the case that the anti-Asian sentiment in the 19th C was about the fear of cheap labour undercutting workers wages. Now of course we have 457 visas.

 

The question is though does a governement have the right to deceive its own people about a policy, even if it leads to a good outcome?

A prosporous country with plenty of jobs will integrate people better then one that has neither the jobs nor the money to provide services to immigrants to maximize their situation.

If there are no jobs, and especialy no entry level work to allow people to get a foot on the ladder then immigration can create problems.
Unemployment leads to socail disadvantage, which often leads to socail disfunction, and a down spiral can occur. This is then transfered from the causes to the group themselves.

Many western countries appear to be moving down the path of underemployment of many of their citizens, with many entry level jobs being part time. People who are trying to start off (both immigrants or young) need ful time entry leveljobs to get into the housing market. (Try getting a loan on a part time job especially with the size of deposit needed in metropolitan Australian cities).

Immigration without jobs will lead immigrants to struggle.

 

Is that a 'yes' to my first question, or a 'no'? And you say you live in an isolated community? I give up, I really do!!

 

That was part of it. The other part was straight out racism. Not an 'either/or' situation. I grew up in the 70s & 80s & those attitudes towards 'asians' were still very mainstream. They are less common now, but you still encounter them.

- - - Updated - - -

You have next to no understanding of either Sweden or Australia. An intelligent person might see that as a natural restraint on offering opinions on either. Guess you don't see it that way.

 

So why don't you tell me what it is I don't understand?

 

'Everything' is a pretty broad category. I don't have enough spare time to fill it.

Your comment on this thread has nothing to do with the discussion going on here. Perhaps you should just read for a while & save your insights until you actually have a contribution to make. Take plenty of time. Really.

 

Mate - I commented on post number 7, and it was a perfectly acceptable question to the poster. Perhaps you shouldn't take it upon yerself to answer questions put to others?

 

OMG You have some serious issues

 

LOL I was going to say the same thing, EVERYTHING lol.

 

Yeah well, luckily for you that's my problem not yours.

 

That's true, but unfortunately Trump is everyone's problem, look I really appreciate what he is trying to do in returning the US to what it once was if it was possible, but it is not. The world is a much smaller place now, we are a more enlightened world, and most of that both the good and the bad is a product of the USA. The USA seems to spend more time fixing the problems it created fixing the problems it created, that is why it is floundering. It created the Taliban, it created ISIS, it created Bin Laden, it has stuck it's nose in any business that involved US dollars, it has all come back to bite you on the ass, just as the Japs did to you and Australia, we both asked for it, and the Japs gave it to us, the problem is it is the innocent soldiers and collateral casualties that suffer, not the powerful businessmen and politicians that run the world or try to.

Trump might sound good, but no matter how many time you flog a dead horse it is still a dead horse.

 

Apart from our differences on The Donald we seem to be in agreement on everything else. I believe that the imperialist days of the US poking its snout into the problems of other countries, thence to get involved and make them worse are over; he won't be doing any more of that. I suspect he'll only get involved if he has to.