PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

SOPS 12th Apr 2015 12:50

From my mother..

Subject: Exotic Travel

My wife and I decided to go on an organised trip to Afghanistan, to see for ourselves what the place was like.

It didn't start well as the first train we were to travel on broke down just few miles north of the station.

We found ourselves stranded in a scary hell hole where no one around us spoke any English!
The train, and surrounding streets were full of Muslims, angry bearded types glared at us, the wife stood out in her brightly coloured sun-dress, as all the local women were draped in black, head to toe, burqas.

We were extremely scared and convinced that we were in deep trouble. Just then, Dave our group leader ushered us off the train and round the corner from Lakemba Station to the bus terminal, where we continued
our journey safely to Sydney Airport.

Hempy 12th Apr 2015 13:08


Ethel the Aardvark 12th Apr 2015 14:03

Did old Phoney say anything to condemn the reclaim rallies or was he too busy trying to offer state funerals to cricket commentators. I appreciate mr Benauld was a top gentleman but I believe state funerals should be reserved for PM's and the like, next he will be offering knighthoods to any Tom Dick or Philip.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was 12th Apr 2015 14:48

Ritchie was an Australian Test Cricket Captain, and thus outranks mere PMs. More deserving of a state funeral than many of the latter.

etimegev 12th Apr 2015 17:45

There's an awful lot of pent up angst in Ethel isn't there?

rh200 12th Apr 2015 20:54

Are you having another night on the turps again Hempy?

That picture looks like another standard bogan p!ss up of young blokes. If it is, its just another sad attempt at using social embarrassment to suppress opposition to ones cause. I believe the Nazi's used to use that tactic to.

Fubaar 12th Apr 2015 21:56

Hempy slays us all with his cutting-edge wit. Then, not long afterwards, Ethel has us speechless and totally unable to mount a riposte to her deep political insight.

This seems to happen quite often.

Are we seeing a pattern here?

MTOW 12th Apr 2015 23:43

Here's a very different spin on the much-derided White Australia Policy, with thanks to Jack Richards, who posted it here. Immigration ? News

I'll be interested to see Hempy/Ethel's reply to it.

Jack Richards 13/04/2015, 8:39 am

The Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 (White Australia Policy) had much more complex causes than just a belief that the British were the world’s superior race. Its main driving force was the desire to create an egalitarian, industrial and modern society and to defeat the plans of big capital (mainly British but not exclusively so) to turn Australia into an extensive plantation worked by armies of “coolies” imported from the Melanesian Islands (Kanakas), China, India, Japan and Africa.

The “coolie” system had been established in Queensland to work the sugar plantations and was little better than slavery. The idea was to entice non-white workers as “indentured labourers”, make them sign a contract, live on the plantation with no rights to leave, and pay them a pittance. There were “capitalists” who wanted to extend the system into every field of agriculture and industry because it was cheaper to employ imported coolies than it was to employ white Australians or Europeans. “Blackbirding” was a common practice whereby ships would essentially kidnap Kanakas from places like the Solomon Islands and the New Hebrides and bring them to work the sugar-cane plantations of Queensland.

The great 19th century corporations operating out of London, Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, Bruxelles and New York saw the Australian colonies as a place to be exploited rather than as a new nation to be respected. The “ethos” that had developed here that abjured the class structures of the old world and rejected the aristocratic hierarchy that then existed was seen as a dangerous example to toiling masses in Europe. A good way to bust Australian radicalism – like the franchise being extended to every adult, male and female; personal rights and freedoms; and the idea of a liveable wage – was to flood the country with docile coolies who could be effectively controlled in a plantation system.

That system worked very well (and provided European ruling classes with huge profits) in the Caribbean, Central America, South America, French Indo-China, Ceylon, Fiji, the Dutch East Indies, South Africa, Malaya and various Pacific Islands and had worked well in the southern USA until the Civil War.

The fall-out from the plantation system is still visible in many countries today. Fiji is more than 50% Indian and subject to endless racial strife; Ceylon has endured a long and bitter war between the native Sinhalese and the descendants of Tamils imported to work the tea plantations; Malaysia has an enduring ethnic problem between native Malays and the Indians and Chinese imported to work the rubber plantations; Indonesia often erupts into anti-Chinese riots against the descendants of coolies imported to work Dutch plantations; native Hawaiians are outnumbered by ethnic Japanese imported to work the sugar and pineapple plantations. Back in the early 1970s Idi Amin expelled all the “Asians” from Uganda who were descended from Indian coolies imported to work plantations there. Mahatma Gandhi started his career in South Africa where Indians had been imported to work the mines, plantations and farms. The Caribbean Islands are almost exclusively populated by the descendants of African slaves. The Central American nations (El Salvador, Guatemala, Belize, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama and Honduras) were essentially taken over and run by the New Orleans based United Fruit Company to grow bananas for the US market – and have given us the term “Banana Republic”. They too are riven by intractable ethnic problems.

In the late 19th Century many Australians could see the way things would play out here if the big “foreign” (and local) corporations were allowed to import millions of non-white coolies. There was even a serious push by some “pure merinos” here (the great land owners) to establish a hereditary aristocracy to rule over a semi-feudal agrarian/planation economy where the “lower orders” had no rights at all. If they’d had their way we’d have things like the Duke and Duchess of Darling Downs, The Baron of Bourke and the Earl of Eastwood.

Australians had seen the Chinese flood in during the gold rushes and observed that 99% of the Chinese arriving were men (very few women) and that they were all effectively “slaves” working off debts to feudal lords back in China. The Chinese had zero interest in the ideas of democracy, egalitarianism, and enlightened progress espoused by Australians and Europeans working the gold field and refused to become involved with demands for freedom, democracy and self-government.

Before Federation the various States had been granted self-government (mainly because the more enlightened politicians in London did not want to fight another War of Independence as they had less than a century before in North America) and the states had progressively introduced laws to restrict non-white immigration – much to the chagrin of many in London boardrooms. At Federation the Immigration Restriction Act came into being and was retrospective. Many of the Kanakas, and other races working the plantations, were repatriated and the companies were forced to employ people at the set minimum wage.

In the first decade of the 20th Century Australia was the most socially progressive, and democratic, nation on earth. We were also, on a per-head basis, the richest people in the world. We proved that freedom, democracy, universal suffrage, the secret ballot, the right to combine, the disestablishment of the Church, the scorning of aristocracy and hierarchical classes, the idea that Jack is as good as his master, a set minimum wage, and compulsory education for all, amongst many other then “radical” ideas could not only work, but could be a resounding success. We also proved that ethnic homogeneity was fundamental to national success.

The many threads that wove the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 had far more to do with building a paradise for the working man than it ever did with racism or idea of “white supremacy”. We wanted people who would stand up for themselves and give the finger to feudal lords and company bosses of Europe, China, Japan, India and the USA.

It is interesting to note that the “Australian Ballot” and our Immigration Restriction Act was also adopted in North America and eventually in Europe.

We should not forget that Great Britain was still a very feudal society in 1901. Adult men did not get the vote until after the First World War in 1919 while British women had to wait until 1930.

If it had not been for the White Australia Policy this country really would be a “Banana Republic” with intractable racial, ethnic and social problems. Many have forgotten the lessons of the past. Those who forget history are regularly forced to re-live it. Importing people who are loyal to a theo-political ideology (i.e. Islam) anathema to everything that defines Australia means that we are digging our own graves.

chuboy 13th Apr 2015 01:22

I love it. Let's prevent the country turning into a "banana republic" fuelled by coloured Melanesian slave labourers by making it illegal for coloured people to immigrate! :rolleyes:

How very progressive. It's not like coloured people would have positively contributed to the economy in any other way anyhow, so no harm done all things considered.

Before you ask, no I don't support the White Australia policy, mostly because I think we should have been allowed to have coolie slaves.

bosnich71 13th Apr 2015 01:40

John .... agreed ref. divided roads etc. Probably the placement of, 'drive on the left' signs on the G.O.R. has more to do with overseas visitors leaving road side car parks there and then turning out onto the wrong side of the road. I once did it myself in Germany whilst driving a RAF 5 ton truck but as we won the War the resulting discussion with a local didn't bother me.
However one would think that there should be signs at Tullamarine also.

RJM 13th Apr 2015 04:47

On the tarmac? Most a/c are left hand drive anyway, aren't they?

Fubaar 13th Apr 2015 05:38

Jack Richards is on a roll. Here's a follow up to his first post. Doubtless, it will be met with disdain and derision by chuboy, Ethel and hempy - but he makes a lot of sense to this old reactionary especially when you consider that almost 120 years ago, it was a very different world with very different attitudes to what many take for granted as 'normal' today.

And he's absolutely on the money about the attitude of the different British classes to Australia and Australians. Also, the attempt by transplanted (all too often 'remittance men') Englishmen to establish a 'bunyip aristocracy' here.

Jack Richards 13/04/2015, 11:17 am

It’s a very complex issue. About 40 years ago I was fortunate enough to study the history of the White Australia Policy and write a very long thesis on it. But 10,000 words were not enough to explain it all.

The Left always seize on it as incontrovertible proof of our inherent and innate “racism” – a simple explanation that is utterly wrong. Australia has always been “multi-ethnic” as there were the Aborigines and all the convict fleets contained non-whites as well. Many Chinese arrived in the 1850s and stayed – as evidenced by the “Chinatowns” in all the major cities and the Chinese market-gardens, laundries, stores and restaurants in just about every country town. Similarly, the Sikhs have been here since well before Federation. Most of the “racial problems” in this country prior to the 1970s were between British Protestants and Irish Catholics – not whites versus non-whites.

People forget that in 1901 Australia was a country of about 5 million, mostly European, a long way from Europe and North America, located just below the teeming billions of East, South East, and South Asia. We still are.

From 1901 until 1942 we relied on the Royal Navy to guarantee our survival – and since then we’ve relied on the US Pacific Fleet. We found out in 1942 that the Royal Navy was prepared to do little to save us; and had it not been for our strategic position, it’s doubtful the US would have been overly eager to come to our defence either.

There is no doubt that the British ruling classes have always considered Australians as the uncouthed and uncultured descendants of the criminal classes of England, Scotland and Wales, the scum of British Society, and unruly, superstitious, Papist and rebellious Irish. We’ve always been the Bastards of the Empire and a dumping ground for their unwanted. Our fate on the other side of the world was not, and is not, of any great interest to the British aristocracy and ruling classes. They’ve proved many times that connections of blood and kinship are worth nothing. It’s a sad truth that those closest to you will be the ones to betray you.

British attitudes to Australia and Australians change with social class. The upper class regard us as “chavs”; loud uncouthed ruffians completely lacking in etiquette and manners who simply do not “know our place”; the middle classes have a sneering envy of our considerable successes in every field; the working classes dream of escaping the cold misery of both the British weather and the class system and living in sunny Ramsay Street where they might be judged by the content of their character and not by their accent or the “Public School” where their father was bullied and buggered.

It was the 19th Century British upper class who wanted to turn us into a huge plantation worked by coolies. They fully expected that the scum they’d exported here would either die out or interbreed – whatever happened, they didn’t want us back and wanted only to exploit the natural resources for their own profit and aggrandisement and to feed the mills worked by the “white niggers” of Lancashire, Yorkshire, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

The “White Australia Policy” was vigorously opposed in Britain and by lickspittles here who wanted to be part of the Bunyip Aristocracy. In 1901 the perceived greatest threat to Australian independence was the Japanese Empire – and Great Britain formed an alliance with Japan! Not only that, but they trained the Japanese Navy and transferred the technology on building warships. The Japanese learned those lessons well as they proved in 1905 by sinking the Imperial Russian Fleet in Port Arthur and then in the Battle of the Tsushima Strait.

The British knew well Australian feelings about Japanese expansionism but they didn’t give a shit. We didn’t matter as we were a very minor part of the Empire compared with India, Canada and British holdings in Africa. It was not long after that that the United States Navy was invited to visit Australia – which was a calculated warning, and insult, to Great Britain. At that time there was much animosity between Great Britain and the USA – indeed the Imperial War Office and the US Defence Department had plans for a possible war between Britain and America.

In the first decade of the 20th Century the United States was much closer to us in world outlook than Britain. They understood our ideas about egalitarianism and democracy and also our desire for ethnic homogeneity. Americans had fought a terrible Civil War to end plantationism and had the problem of a large population of Negroes, a fairly porous border with Mexico and a major influx of East Asians (mostly Chinese and Japanese) into their Pacific States. With a few changes, they pretty-much adopted our “Immigration Restriction Act” in the early 1920s.

As I said, it was a very complex issue that really had nothing to do with racism or white supremacy or any ideas that non-whites were lower on the evolutionary scale than whites. The Japanese had blown away any ideas of innate white supremacy by the way they humiliated the mighty Russians in 1905 at Mukden, Port Arthur and Tsushima.

We have to consider what we want Australia to look like in century or two into the future when we discuss immigration. We must learn from the mistakes of others – as we did in the 19th Century – and not sow the seeds of our own destruction. We can only do that by ensuring that those who come to this country do so for the right reasons and that is to adopt out ways, our language, our ethos and social mores. Multiculturalism has been a disaster everywhere it has ever been tried since the days of the Roman Empire. Sectarianism and religious intolerance is always a powder-keg waiting for a spark; ethnic and cultural enclaves benefit no-one. Importing people who have no intention, or desire, to become “Ozzies” and share in the national story and march into the future will only weaken us irrevocably and condemn our descendants to endless strife and eventual subjugation – if not extinction.

bosnich71 13th Apr 2015 06:17

Reading that I'd hazard a guess and say that Mr. Richards has a few chips to cart around.

chuboy 13th Apr 2015 06:42

Indeed. Googling his name returns many years' worth of blog comments in support of the White Australia Policy :hmm:

In a roundabout way, I agree with him. The WAP was good in preventing the proliferation of coolie slaves in the country, and that is admirable. But the question is, do we really need to use racist immigration law as the tool to steer our country in the direction of a fair and just society?

I don't think so.

Multiculturalism to the extent that it has allowed ghettos to form where immigrants can become marginalised from mainstream society is bad policy. But, every city has suburbs which meet the same criteria and they are not always filled with immigrants. Sometimes they are just filled with white trash, the ne'er-do-wells and the meth addicts.

It is a problem that can be dealt with using progressive social policy, sound town planning and, dare I say it, a pinch of taxpayer's money. Executed properly, most people would agree it is money well spent - but then again, executed properly, nobody would know there was ever a problem to start with!

Hempy 13th Apr 2015 08:05

A link would probably be sufficient. tl;dr

Worrals in the wilds 13th Apr 2015 08:52

There was even a serious push by some “pure merinos” here (the great land owners) to establish a hereditary aristocracy to rule over a semi-feudal agrarian/planation economy where the “lower orders” had no rights at all. If they’d had their way we’d have things like the Duke and Duchess of Darling Downs, The Baron of Bourke and the Earl of Eastwood.
Isn't that still National Party policy? :E:}

On the tarmac? Most a/c are left hand drive anyway, aren't they?
Don't go there. :eek::ouch:
No Cookies | Herald Sun
To clarify I was referring to the public approach roads, but I'm sure you realised that. :}

CoodaShooda 13th Apr 2015 09:38


Surely any law which seeks to control how or where immigrants are required to settle into the community is, by definition, racist? :confused:

The elephant in the room for me is the question of what we want Australia to be. If we surveyed the contributors to this thread, I doubt we would find any form of unanimity; so what hope the broader community?

Gough and Grassby started the process of destroying the pillars of establishment upon which Australia had created one form of society.

No government since then has espoused a clear vision for the country and backed it up with coherent and effective policies. (Although Howard had some success in embracing the values of an earlier, more comfortable era.)

As with the UK, we've been swept up in the tide of Multiculturalism; so the debates are usually sidetracked into individual issues and dominated by special interest groups rather than focusing on the underlying question.

The modern, frenetic media and political cycles likewise give no opportunity for the development of base level concepts.

We have a system that is broken and too much energy is being wasted in the jerking of knees, chasing tails and applying bandaid solutions.

Ethel the Aardvark 13th Apr 2015 10:10

Hey Fubey,
I find it quite comical that a bunch of yobs veiling their faces with aussie flags demonstrating that Muslim women should not be allowed to do the same.:ugh:

etimegev 13th Apr 2015 10:22

I think that most fair thinking people have no great problem with immigration per se but do have a great problem with those who make little attempt to assimilate into the manners and customs of their adopted country but instead actively pursue behaviour designed to change us to their way of life.

Worrals in the wilds 13th Apr 2015 11:26

Surely any law which seeks to control how or where immigrants are required to settle into the community is, by definition, racist? :confused:
No. The Migration Act and its regulations concern themselves with nationality, not race. I can't think of a current Act that mentions race (apart from the Constitution of course):hmm:;

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xxvi) the people of any race , other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws; [ italicised words deleted by referendum in 1967]
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]
Feel free to jump in with any other exceptions, because I may have missed them. However, the Migration Act regulates migration to Australia based on nationality, not race. You might be a white Kenyan or a black Frenchman, but the Act applies without taking 'race' into account. The Act may arguably be unfair, it may be parochial and it may be a bunch of other things, but it does not mention race.
Race and nationality are two separate things.

If we surveyed the contributors to this thread, I doubt we would find any form of unanimity;
And nor should we want that. Democracy is not about unanimity; it is about discussion, dessention and fluid consensus that considers the facts at hand and shifts accordingly. Much as the government (whatever side) and Murdoch press would like us to believe otherwise, there are no easy answers to difficult questions such as what is the acceptable level of foreign migration.

As etimegev refers to, many (if not most) Australians have no issue with foreign migrants per se, but have a big issue with migrants who turn up ready to cause trouble :uhoh:. I share that concern, but unfortunately many of the troublemakers are actually Australian born.

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:08.

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.