An enjoyable read Oz. It is interesting the white history you describe for Australia. White and liberal and eventually accepting multiculturalism, opening the door to other cultures, while surrounded by countries that are homogenous, and not really open to white immigration.
I’m curious about your thoughts on why generally white culture is classically liberal and therefore open to multiculturalism while other cultures, being not classically liberal, are not. I’m white, I think I get it, but I don’t understand it. Are classical liberals more altruistic, and if we are, why?
I don’t think I feel threatened by multiculturalism but I do worry about my kids and grandchildren. Because of my multiculturalism I hire everyone, purchase from anyone and promote those who merit it. But truth be told, the immigrant population (Canada) is usually more self serving than universally accepting. They have brought their homogeneity, only hire their own, only buy from their own, only promote their own. Where my grandchildren expect everyone, including themselves, to participate in the economy, that is really not what is happening. To some extent they are excluded. So why do we set up a culture that does that to our offspring? What in our classical liberal thinking is driving us to do that?
I recall reading that Australia's founders wanted the White Australia Policy to be in the constitution and that this was one of the reasons New Zealand declined the offer to join the federation. They ended up dropping this idea from the constitution and did it through legislation instead because the Anglo-Japanese alliance was under negotiation at the time and was signed the year after federation. In addition to the Immigration Restriction Act, the part of the policy that seems mostly forgotten nowadays is that Melanesians brought over from blackbirding were deported.
Interestingly, Japan brought in immigrants from its colonies during the imperial period, and their colonial policy in Korea became focused on assimilation. Therefore, it could be compared (at least during certain periods) to the French idea of mission civilisatrice rather than to Anglo-American ideas of races being unshakably superior or inferior. Japan also provided refuge to pan-Asianists and Asian nationalists during this time such as Phan Boi Chau (though he was eventually expelled) and promoted anticolonialism. After WWII because Japan had lost its sovereignty, the state could no longer serve as the basis of nationalism. Hence, ethnicity became the main source of national identity. This has declined over the decades, and the government's tried quite hard to attract immigrants but hasn't been that successful.
"At the hearings of an 1854 Victorian Royal Commission one of their leaders maintained that this principle did not apply to the Chinese because ‘they were not civilised’. When it was pointed out that they regarded themselves as highly civilised..." and then someone in the audience screamed 'but not even savages do footbinding!', and passing around photographs of the ghastly practice among the disgusted members of the commission obtained their unanimous declaration that no people of such abhorrent customs should be permitted to gain authority on these shores...
Alas, this did not happen but it could and should have. One of the central flaws of the old world, which brought about the transition to the new was substitution of of vague and flowery... "but we all kind of get it right" language where specific empirical data was widely available.
The Anglo’s☝️slipped to below 50% at the end of last decade. Does it mean the end of liberalism in this country? It does seem to coincide with a concerning trend. Not many countries are kept stable being run by minorities (white South Africa, allawite Syria, Tutsi Rwanda).
Do you think the actual blood of the country and its mythology is the life force? Or are de colonial politics and economic incentives stronger movers for the change? Asking for a friend.
We do seem to be entering an illiberal phase to say the least. Our “multiculturalism” hasn’t helped.
Re: Chinese on the goldfields: I’ve read that there was also some sense among the British miners that they were here building a nation while the Chinese would take any wealth straight out of the country.
An enjoyable read Oz. It is interesting the white history you describe for Australia. White and liberal and eventually accepting multiculturalism, opening the door to other cultures, while surrounded by countries that are homogenous, and not really open to white immigration.
I’m curious about your thoughts on why generally white culture is classically liberal and therefore open to multiculturalism while other cultures, being not classically liberal, are not. I’m white, I think I get it, but I don’t understand it. Are classical liberals more altruistic, and if we are, why?
I don’t think I feel threatened by multiculturalism but I do worry about my kids and grandchildren. Because of my multiculturalism I hire everyone, purchase from anyone and promote those who merit it. But truth be told, the immigrant population (Canada) is usually more self serving than universally accepting. They have brought their homogeneity, only hire their own, only buy from their own, only promote their own. Where my grandchildren expect everyone, including themselves, to participate in the economy, that is really not what is happening. To some extent they are excluded. So why do we set up a culture that does that to our offspring? What in our classical liberal thinking is driving us to do that?
Cheers!
I recall reading that Australia's founders wanted the White Australia Policy to be in the constitution and that this was one of the reasons New Zealand declined the offer to join the federation. They ended up dropping this idea from the constitution and did it through legislation instead because the Anglo-Japanese alliance was under negotiation at the time and was signed the year after federation. In addition to the Immigration Restriction Act, the part of the policy that seems mostly forgotten nowadays is that Melanesians brought over from blackbirding were deported.
Interestingly, Japan brought in immigrants from its colonies during the imperial period, and their colonial policy in Korea became focused on assimilation. Therefore, it could be compared (at least during certain periods) to the French idea of mission civilisatrice rather than to Anglo-American ideas of races being unshakably superior or inferior. Japan also provided refuge to pan-Asianists and Asian nationalists during this time such as Phan Boi Chau (though he was eventually expelled) and promoted anticolonialism. After WWII because Japan had lost its sovereignty, the state could no longer serve as the basis of nationalism. Hence, ethnicity became the main source of national identity. This has declined over the decades, and the government's tried quite hard to attract immigrants but hasn't been that successful.
"At the hearings of an 1854 Victorian Royal Commission one of their leaders maintained that this principle did not apply to the Chinese because ‘they were not civilised’. When it was pointed out that they regarded themselves as highly civilised..." and then someone in the audience screamed 'but not even savages do footbinding!', and passing around photographs of the ghastly practice among the disgusted members of the commission obtained their unanimous declaration that no people of such abhorrent customs should be permitted to gain authority on these shores...
Alas, this did not happen but it could and should have. One of the central flaws of the old world, which brought about the transition to the new was substitution of of vague and flowery... "but we all kind of get it right" language where specific empirical data was widely available.
The Anglo’s☝️slipped to below 50% at the end of last decade. Does it mean the end of liberalism in this country? It does seem to coincide with a concerning trend. Not many countries are kept stable being run by minorities (white South Africa, allawite Syria, Tutsi Rwanda).
Do you think the actual blood of the country and its mythology is the life force? Or are de colonial politics and economic incentives stronger movers for the change? Asking for a friend.
We do seem to be entering an illiberal phase to say the least. Our “multiculturalism” hasn’t helped.
Thank you for your writing.
Re: Chinese on the goldfields: I’ve read that there was also some sense among the British miners that they were here building a nation while the Chinese would take any wealth straight out of the country.