Economics is the underlying force, that no one wants to talk about. The end of Imperial Preference in 1961, declining US investment as the Indo China wars heat up, the collapse of Breton Woods in 1971. In fact if it weren't for that last point, Whitlam may never have gone straight for the migration jugular in '76. And this is the answer to the vibes question, why do these guys all just wake up one day and say "actually we need millions of immigrants", the answer is on longitudinal GDP charts. If anyone is going to ever untie the gordian knot of Australian migration policy that's where it starts and that's how it ends, with total economic reform.
It's a long one, but take a look at these paragraphs:
"And now here we are, my dear Bob, two old gentlemen, Prime Ministers of our respective countries, sixty years later, rubbing our eyes and wondering what has happened. What has really happened is this.
By folly and weakness on the one side, and incredible wickedness on the other, Europe has twice pulled itself to pieces in a single generation. I do not think the loss of life, terrible as it has been (especially since it always takes its toll of the best), has been the chief loss. Nor does the squandering of money and materials amount to much: these can be replaced. What has really gone is the prestige of the Europeans–British, French, Germans, call them what you will. Whether in the Old World, or migrated to the New World, or settled in Australasia, or in Africa, Europeans have broadly governed the world for over 2,000 years in a more or less coherent unit. First the Roman Empire and then, as it fell apart, the Goths, the Vandals and the Saxons, were sufficiently like the Old Europeans in race and blood to be absorbed, and in turn to absorb the Roman or European civilisation. This lay civilisation, inspired the enthusiasm of the Christian movement and supported the power and authority of the Church, created a situation where the civilised world meant really Europe and its extensions overseas. Even though England stood a little apart, yet curiously enough she has been forced at least every century and sometimes more often to intervene in order to maintain the balance of Europe.
But, as I say, what the two wars did was to destroy the prestige of the white people. For not only did the yellows and blacks watch them tear each other apart, committing the most frightful crimes and acts of barbarism against each other, but they actually saw them enlisting each their own yellows and blacks to fight other Europeans, other whites. It was bad enough for the white men to fight each other, but it was worse when they brought in their dependents. And what we have really seen since the war is the revolt of the yellows and blacks from the automatic leadership and control of the whites."
Lothrop Stoddard quoted Pearson extensively. Pearson said the White Australia Policy was gospel rather than policy and that it was as central to the Australian polity as the Bill of Rights was to the USA.
I've argued that part of the reason for the Australian elites' fixation in the late twentieth century with becoming part of Asia ("seeking security in Asia, not from Asia", "choosing between history and geography", etc.) was the anti-American sentiment that developed over the course of the Vietnam War, which led them to seek a national identity that separated Oz from Murca.
That's prob part of it. But I suspect it was bipartisan, not just anti-war people, because America lost and retreated and would never come again. And so Australia felt stuck: we will have to live here. We need to placate and navigate these neighbours alone.
I was curious whether you’ve read Lopez’s The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics, 1945–1975. It’s a title that seems to be popular in these spaces.
Too infrequently mentioned is that the earliest and loudest opposition to the White Australia policy came from the Communist Party, which was also vocal in its support for indigenous Australians.
Yes but that was because these diaspora communists were antogonists and anti-nationalists. Meaney does raise that. I think it is not the discredit of white australia!
As an American who obviously knows nothing about the Anglo world of which Australia is a part, it is one of the mysteries of the past century how England has declined. It snowed this morning, so I stayed home and watched the mass on TV, and the choir sang one of those wonderful old anglican hymns. It struck me as so sad, something so assured and confident (not the right word, really). Reading Kipling recently and being struck by how assured and confident (not jingoistic) the picture of the English world, when England really ruled the waves, as the operetta (English) song had it, and the country had confidence in itself And then WWI and ka-bam, no more and never again. Okay, granted they lost a million men in that folly, but so did the other countries. Why did they just crump out and decide they were no longer so great or important? And now the goings on in England are beyond caricature. I imagine (I have to imagine, not knowing anything about Australia) that the same feeling must extend down there. It's just sad. And as an American, I have to fear, are we next?
Almost everything in the Meaney article seems off to me but to take the most obvious thing: Australia actively championed Indonesian independence at the UN and such foreign policy thinking did begin to slowly shift immigration policy, see John Burton, Jamie Mackie. And people like Mackie were driven by seeing the reputational impact of the white Australia policy in Asia, which became obvious to Australians over time as the world became smaller.
Meaney writes a lot about the reputational thing. Japanese and Chinese were very affronted by Australia's policy - the Japanese were aghast to be lumped in with "lower" peoples!
Rightly so! And when Australians realised this, due to better contact with Asia, there was broad support to end the policy. There’s a good article by Gwenda Tavan on how it changed incrementally in which she deals with/debunks the “stealth policy” hypothesis that arose later.
I'm pure Han Chinese from the plains states and I absolutely suggest immigration for my country because we are so closed off otherwise. Many Asian countries like Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia are multicultural like Latin America (different from the anglosphere) and they do much better than us in terms of international reputation.
Being in the US, I'm obviously not assimilated at all and it's farcical here to suggest culturally appropriating another race's culture. Culture is part of the extended phenotype. Moreover assimilation can only work when there's 1% of one group and 99% of the other.
The only way to assimilate people meaningfully is either racial amalgamation, which was done in the traditional Ellis Island wave of immigration including with part black Latinos, who are nevertheless still Christian background, or some sort of mass cultural or religious conversion program
Religious conversion is a form of transracialism for example red headed guys converting to Islam lol or some West Africans converting en masse to Christianity to seek the protection of the West in the face of Islamicization as well as linguistic conversion to the dominant language.
Well, our passport bros have been importing wives from Africa already. Afghanistan is China's ancient trading partner and if they want somewhere to go, they can just head east. Japan already imports Nepali guest workers.
I have no idea what that movie is. Chinese passport bros are going to Kenya etc because they have a ton of money and it's the same quasi pedo shit you see when Westerners go to Cambodia. I'm not for it because of the age gap element but it's a thing.
Economics is the underlying force, that no one wants to talk about. The end of Imperial Preference in 1961, declining US investment as the Indo China wars heat up, the collapse of Breton Woods in 1971. In fact if it weren't for that last point, Whitlam may never have gone straight for the migration jugular in '76. And this is the answer to the vibes question, why do these guys all just wake up one day and say "actually we need millions of immigrants", the answer is on longitudinal GDP charts. If anyone is going to ever untie the gordian knot of Australian migration policy that's where it starts and that's how it ends, with total economic reform.
But does one follow the other? Need non-British immigrants for a good economy?
Japan then China replaced Britain as dominant trading partner. But again, not sure that needs to inform immigration policy
You might be interested in reading this (pretty incredible) letter from Harold Macmillan to Menzies in 1962, trying to explain the vibe shift in pretty blunt language. https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/historical-documents/volume-27/Pages/162-letter-macmillan-to-menzies
It's a long one, but take a look at these paragraphs:
"And now here we are, my dear Bob, two old gentlemen, Prime Ministers of our respective countries, sixty years later, rubbing our eyes and wondering what has happened. What has really happened is this.
By folly and weakness on the one side, and incredible wickedness on the other, Europe has twice pulled itself to pieces in a single generation. I do not think the loss of life, terrible as it has been (especially since it always takes its toll of the best), has been the chief loss. Nor does the squandering of money and materials amount to much: these can be replaced. What has really gone is the prestige of the Europeans–British, French, Germans, call them what you will. Whether in the Old World, or migrated to the New World, or settled in Australasia, or in Africa, Europeans have broadly governed the world for over 2,000 years in a more or less coherent unit. First the Roman Empire and then, as it fell apart, the Goths, the Vandals and the Saxons, were sufficiently like the Old Europeans in race and blood to be absorbed, and in turn to absorb the Roman or European civilisation. This lay civilisation, inspired the enthusiasm of the Christian movement and supported the power and authority of the Church, created a situation where the civilised world meant really Europe and its extensions overseas. Even though England stood a little apart, yet curiously enough she has been forced at least every century and sometimes more often to intervene in order to maintain the balance of Europe.
But, as I say, what the two wars did was to destroy the prestige of the white people. For not only did the yellows and blacks watch them tear each other apart, committing the most frightful crimes and acts of barbarism against each other, but they actually saw them enlisting each their own yellows and blacks to fight other Europeans, other whites. It was bad enough for the white men to fight each other, but it was worse when they brought in their dependents. And what we have really seen since the war is the revolt of the yellows and blacks from the automatic leadership and control of the whites."
Nice one!
Lothrop Stoddard quoted Pearson extensively. Pearson said the White Australia Policy was gospel rather than policy and that it was as central to the Australian polity as the Bill of Rights was to the USA.
I've argued that part of the reason for the Australian elites' fixation in the late twentieth century with becoming part of Asia ("seeking security in Asia, not from Asia", "choosing between history and geography", etc.) was the anti-American sentiment that developed over the course of the Vietnam War, which led them to seek a national identity that separated Oz from Murca.
That's prob part of it. But I suspect it was bipartisan, not just anti-war people, because America lost and retreated and would never come again. And so Australia felt stuck: we will have to live here. We need to placate and navigate these neighbours alone.
I was curious whether you’ve read Lopez’s The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics, 1945–1975. It’s a title that seems to be popular in these spaces.
No but thanks will check out
Too infrequently mentioned is that the earliest and loudest opposition to the White Australia policy came from the Communist Party, which was also vocal in its support for indigenous Australians.
Yes but that was because these diaspora communists were antogonists and anti-nationalists. Meaney does raise that. I think it is not the discredit of white australia!
As an American who obviously knows nothing about the Anglo world of which Australia is a part, it is one of the mysteries of the past century how England has declined. It snowed this morning, so I stayed home and watched the mass on TV, and the choir sang one of those wonderful old anglican hymns. It struck me as so sad, something so assured and confident (not the right word, really). Reading Kipling recently and being struck by how assured and confident (not jingoistic) the picture of the English world, when England really ruled the waves, as the operetta (English) song had it, and the country had confidence in itself And then WWI and ka-bam, no more and never again. Okay, granted they lost a million men in that folly, but so did the other countries. Why did they just crump out and decide they were no longer so great or important? And now the goings on in England are beyond caricature. I imagine (I have to imagine, not knowing anything about Australia) that the same feeling must extend down there. It's just sad. And as an American, I have to fear, are we next?
Almost everything in the Meaney article seems off to me but to take the most obvious thing: Australia actively championed Indonesian independence at the UN and such foreign policy thinking did begin to slowly shift immigration policy, see John Burton, Jamie Mackie. And people like Mackie were driven by seeing the reputational impact of the white Australia policy in Asia, which became obvious to Australians over time as the world became smaller.
Meaney writes a lot about the reputational thing. Japanese and Chinese were very affronted by Australia's policy - the Japanese were aghast to be lumped in with "lower" peoples!
Rightly so! And when Australians realised this, due to better contact with Asia, there was broad support to end the policy. There’s a good article by Gwenda Tavan on how it changed incrementally in which she deals with/debunks the “stealth policy” hypothesis that arose later.
I have two more pieces coming on this that may (or may not) address some of your qualms
It was popular though too. Britain also didn't help, choosing Europe over its dominions, amongst other things.
I'm pure Han Chinese from the plains states and I absolutely suggest immigration for my country because we are so closed off otherwise. Many Asian countries like Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia are multicultural like Latin America (different from the anglosphere) and they do much better than us in terms of international reputation.
Being in the US, I'm obviously not assimilated at all and it's farcical here to suggest culturally appropriating another race's culture. Culture is part of the extended phenotype. Moreover assimilation can only work when there's 1% of one group and 99% of the other.
The only way to assimilate people meaningfully is either racial amalgamation, which was done in the traditional Ellis Island wave of immigration including with part black Latinos, who are nevertheless still Christian background, or some sort of mass cultural or religious conversion program
Religious conversion is a form of transracialism for example red headed guys converting to Islam lol or some West Africans converting en masse to Christianity to seek the protection of the West in the face of Islamicization as well as linguistic conversion to the dominant language.
Mass migration to China over the next few decades is a fascinating concept
Would be plausible but there is nowheee but Africa with young people to migrate!
Well, our passport bros have been importing wives from Africa already. Afghanistan is China's ancient trading partner and if they want somewhere to go, they can just head east. Japan already imports Nepali guest workers.
Really? African wives? Like the babes our of Lord of War?
I have no idea what that movie is. Chinese passport bros are going to Kenya etc because they have a ton of money and it's the same quasi pedo shit you see when Westerners go to Cambodia. I'm not for it because of the age gap element but it's a thing.
Grim