Talk:White Australia policy/Archive 1

message: It's true that the word "racism" didn't exist before the 1930s, but the very similar word "racialism" did.  I'm uneasy about the statement "It is easy, but mistaken, to attribute all these actions to what is now called racism." for a more basic reason.  What the paragraph actually argues for is that the beliefs we now call "racism" were the norm in the past, which is not the same thing at all.  It is a correct and fair point to make, but the current wording does not make it properly.  Adam? --zero 04:43, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether Arthur Calwell had a genuine affection for Asian culture is debatable. I remember some of his vitriolic speeches back in the 1950s and also when he came out with the comment: "two Wongs don't make a white". The article does not mention the fact that many Asian countries such as Malaysia, Japan et al after World War II also practiced exclusionary policies in regard to race. Australia is not alone and that should be made clear.
* You would need to quote some of these "vitriolic speeches" for me to change my mind about his attitudes.
* "Two Wongs don't make a white" is a line that has been blown out of all proportion. It was a joke made in the House about two brothers called Wong and a Liberal MP called White. Certainly it was in poor taste by current standards but it was not a crude racial jibe either.
* I agree that many, perhaps most, countries had policies of racial exclusion. That point could I suppose be made somewhere.
Dr Adam Carr
----
I cannot emphasize how POV I find this article.  According to the text, the WAP was not racist, period, because all (or "nearly everybody") the powers thought and behaved in this manner.  I won't question that "nearly everybody" (though I think it needs to be clarified, a lot).  However, I think a POV article would say something along the lines of: "Some people have charged that this policy was the height of racism.  However, it should be noted that..." and not flat out saying that it is "mistaken" to call this exclusionary policy racism.  Yes, Imperial China thought itself the center of the world, and you know what?  Imperial China was an incredibly racist society, whether the word existed or not.  Oh, and to me, thinking other races are superior to one's own is racism as well, just of a different stripe (and it's usually a placating diversion from more underlying contempt for others --- viz the US racist's willingness to admit that American blacks are "more gifted" at athletics).  Ensiform 17:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Racism vs Racialism

message: Change reference of non-European to non white. Firstly, it is about "white" Australian Policy.  Secondly, I wouldn't have minded the use of non-European if the article isn't this apologetic.  Not even one mention has been made that the cause of the policy is racism in the entire article.  Moreover, the fear of being "swamped" is presented as something which can be justified. Inclusion of example of racism of other countres is another example.  What if someone trying to do the same in say, Nanking Massacre.  Lastly, if you think it is trivial, then leave this edit alone.  If you think it is significant, it is more the reason to keep it that way.  FWBOarticle 05:35, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: non-European to non white

message: How did aboriginals fit into the White Australia policy?  --VivaRose
*****How did aboriginals fit into the White Australia policy? --VivaRose
The WAP was an immigration policy, Aboriginal people weren't 'immigrating' to Australia in the late 19th/20th centuries.
--Black Dagger 13:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How did aboriginals fit into the White Australia policy?

message: I would like some views on the use of blackbirding. This implies the Kanacks were abducted into piracy. While there is evidence that this did occur, most of the Kanacks were indentured labour. They were contracted for a fixed period on low wages (lower than a European would work for anyway.) The eugenics argument also has a place here. A justification for importing the Kanacks was the theory, strongly supported by the medical profession that Northern Europeans were not physiologically suited for labour in the tropics. This theory lasted well into the 1930s. It of course suited the plantation owners to support this theory with the result that they had a cheap and relatively docile work force.--Porturology 08:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a few weeks on this in a history class last year at uni. I think the article actually covers this quite well. Although some Pacific Islanders were brought to Australia as (poorly) paid workers, a fair proportion were tricked into getting onto the boats, and some were forcibly kidnapped. Specifically the term blackbirding only applies to those who were kidnapped (). --bainer (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackbirding