As an Australian of Chinese background, I find your series on the White Australia Policy rather fascinating.
Given that it seems that our political class has let our earlier successes in multiculturalism get to their head, what would be the way going forward regarding the elephant in the room of sufficiently integrating our existing immigrants (those that can be integrated of course)? What would a new immigration policy I’m Australia’s interest look like?
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.
Indeed. They changed their five-year guest worker program into permanent residency with a five-year path to naturalization and also allow those on it to bring over relatives. They also have visas that will automatically be granted to people who've graduated from a top 100 global university (which includes USyd and UniMelb) in the last five years. Their low immigration rate is due to a combination of being an unattractive destination (low wages, unfamiliar language) and large base population. Nevertheless, among young people Tokyo's an eighth foreign-born now.
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.
I view it as the other way around. The current universalist turn is a outcome of the WWII liberal geas and it has just about timed out. We will inevitably return to something that doesn’t feel like the WAP but will achieve the same agenda.
Even granting the homogeneity rhetoric, the Irish Catholic minority still created a massive cleavage in the Australian polity - our geography was probably the only thing that meaningfully diffused sectarian tensions in the post-Federation period. It is hard to overstate how inflammatory a figure like Archbishop Mannix was. From entryism in the ALP to the formation of the DLP, Australian Catholics did more than almost any other force to undermine Old (pro-WAP) Labor, which compelled the party to reinvent itself and opened the door to a Liberal monopoly - one they used to gradually dismantle White Australia. Notably, Abul Rizvi’s parents came to Australia under a trial program instituted by Holt that allowed a small cohort of skilled non-whites to immigrate.
"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.
A thoughtful essay thanks. I think it is hard to explain Australia's embrace of multiculturalism from the 1960s without recognising that some form of multiculturalism, or at least rejection of an ethnostate, was occurring throughout the West at the same time, and we were boarding the same train. So the universalism inherent in liberalism (for which conservatives strongly criticise it) was either becoming a factor across the West or there was something else at work as well. Perhaps both are true. I am attracted to RR Reno's and Tom Holland's thesis that the post WW2 West should be seen as a reaction to Nazism which made racially particular ideas morally repugnant (probably for underlying 'Christian' reasons as Holland argues). Liberalism of course fit the bill for those wishing to embrace universalism in the political sphere. And it was true that it was ready to hand in the Australian tradition. Likewise, the British Empire itself promoted a defacto or real multiculturalism as a ruling necessity which conflicted with the parallel idea of the British race to which its descendants owed their affections. Post WW2 this still had some sway and likely had some influence across the oceans to Australia. Of course, as you imply, the challenge is that Anglo liberalism is particular, not universalist as it claims. If the ethnos goes, so goes the liberalism. Ditching White Australia doesn't resolve the tensions, it leaves them simmering with the potential to bubble over later, as we perhaps are now seeing.
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?
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.
That was at least the complaint of groups like the Anti-Chinese League. I don’t know the statistics on how accurate it was versus non-Chinese miners, probably at least directionally accurate but it might have been a self fulfilling thing? Look at the civic infrastructure in some of those old gold rush towns though, they built superb post offices, courts etc.
As an Australian of Chinese background, I find your series on the White Australia Policy rather fascinating.
Given that it seems that our political class has let our earlier successes in multiculturalism get to their head, what would be the way going forward regarding the elephant in the room of sufficiently integrating our existing immigrants (those that can be integrated of course)? What would a new immigration policy I’m Australia’s interest look like?
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.
Has it tried to attract immigrants?
Indeed. They changed their five-year guest worker program into permanent residency with a five-year path to naturalization and also allow those on it to bring over relatives. They also have visas that will automatically be granted to people who've graduated from a top 100 global university (which includes USyd and UniMelb) in the last five years. Their low immigration rate is due to a combination of being an unattractive destination (low wages, unfamiliar language) and large base population. Nevertheless, among young people Tokyo's an eighth foreign-born now.
Wow thanks... narrative violation!
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.
I view it as the other way around. The current universalist turn is a outcome of the WWII liberal geas and it has just about timed out. We will inevitably return to something that doesn’t feel like the WAP but will achieve the same agenda.
One of your best so far. Neville would be proud too.
A beautiful compliment!
Even granting the homogeneity rhetoric, the Irish Catholic minority still created a massive cleavage in the Australian polity - our geography was probably the only thing that meaningfully diffused sectarian tensions in the post-Federation period. It is hard to overstate how inflammatory a figure like Archbishop Mannix was. From entryism in the ALP to the formation of the DLP, Australian Catholics did more than almost any other force to undermine Old (pro-WAP) Labor, which compelled the party to reinvent itself and opened the door to a Liberal monopoly - one they used to gradually dismantle White Australia. Notably, Abul Rizvi’s parents came to Australia under a trial program instituted by Holt that allowed a small cohort of skilled non-whites to immigrate.
"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.
Isnt this exactly wrong? Footbinding not only disappeared in the diaspora but also in China
IIRC, a few Qing Dynasty emperors tried to unsuccessfully ban foot binding too.
Though during the time where Chinese immigration occurred pre-Federation, the anti-foot binding movement was still in its infancy.
Not sure I would characterise the colonial posturing with regard to Indigenous Australians as ‘deeply enlightened’. Unless you meant well rehearsed
A thoughtful essay thanks. I think it is hard to explain Australia's embrace of multiculturalism from the 1960s without recognising that some form of multiculturalism, or at least rejection of an ethnostate, was occurring throughout the West at the same time, and we were boarding the same train. So the universalism inherent in liberalism (for which conservatives strongly criticise it) was either becoming a factor across the West or there was something else at work as well. Perhaps both are true. I am attracted to RR Reno's and Tom Holland's thesis that the post WW2 West should be seen as a reaction to Nazism which made racially particular ideas morally repugnant (probably for underlying 'Christian' reasons as Holland argues). Liberalism of course fit the bill for those wishing to embrace universalism in the political sphere. And it was true that it was ready to hand in the Australian tradition. Likewise, the British Empire itself promoted a defacto or real multiculturalism as a ruling necessity which conflicted with the parallel idea of the British race to which its descendants owed their affections. Post WW2 this still had some sway and likely had some influence across the oceans to Australia. Of course, as you imply, the challenge is that Anglo liberalism is particular, not universalist as it claims. If the ethnos goes, so goes the liberalism. Ditching White Australia doesn't resolve the tensions, it leaves them simmering with the potential to bubble over later, as we perhaps are now seeing.
You are preempting my last essay in this series!!
Sorry!!
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!
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.
Doubt the gold diggers were nation building in their aspirations...
That was at least the complaint of groups like the Anti-Chinese League. I don’t know the statistics on how accurate it was versus non-Chinese miners, probably at least directionally accurate but it might have been a self fulfilling thing? Look at the civic infrastructure in some of those old gold rush towns though, they built superb post offices, courts etc.