This led to some discussion in the comments thread of when the decision to change course on immigration policy was made in Australia. I pointed out that it was made during the war cabinets in WWII. Although the Labor Party initiated the changes, they were supported by the Liberal Party.
The shift toward a multiethnic nation was supported by Arthur Calwell. Calwell believed in diversity as a matter of social justice:
As a school boy in Melbourne Calwell grew up in the shadow of his mixed Irish and Welsh ancestry. His wide reading in American history, into the lives of the English Chartists, Fabian Socialists and the nationalist struggles in Ireland and Continental Europe imbued him with a strong sense of history in which Australia was to be seen as an inheritor of the ideals enshrined in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. In newspaper articles, speeches made as president of the Victorian Labor Party during the 1930s, and later after election as federal member for Melbourne in 1940, Calwell's deep concern for social justice was invariably linked with the creation in Australia of an ethnically mixed society through large-scale immigration.
...in a confidential note addressed to Chifley in 1944 he wrote of his determination to develop a heterogeneous society
Calwell, it is true, wanted to draw a particular line the sand: he wanted a diverse, heterogeneous, ethnically mixed society drawn from different European sources rather than non-European ones. But that's not a line that was ever going to hold. If it is thought socially just to build a society based on the principle of diversity, then the "moral" thing was always going to be to go the next step and to open up to non-European immigration.
Last year, the Labor minister Simon Crean gave a speech on Calwell's legacy:
He firmly believed in the principles of fairness, equality and social justice...Arthur Calwell successfully argued for the acceptance of a more heterogeneous society...In doing so he brought the union movement and the nation with him...His conviction to the cause was underpinned by his values and his commitment to equality, fairness and social justice...He not only led the debate on immigration—he was responsible for laying the fundamental foundation of modern Australia—an Australia that is inclusive, diverse and tolerant.
Calwell is a classic example of someone who wanted to take a radical principle to a certain point and then no more. But the next generation inevitably wanted to push on further and Calwell's objections were brushed aside.
As Simon Crean recognises, the principle that led to the open borders of today was put in place in the 1940s by men like Arthur Calwell, a Catholic Labor man who wanted to follow the example of the American melting pot. It didn't require the influence of the continental European cultural Marxists.
He was an advocate for balkanisation. People should be against this on the principle that it is simply creating chaos where there was peace.
ReplyDeleteAwhile ago I had a short and interesting conversation with a left-liberal.
I referred to him as a radical using the true meaning of the word.
He said he was not a radical because of the negative connotation of being extremist.
He went on to admit that he was an advocate for complete upheaval and change of society gradually.
So even after admitting he was a radical he still refused to accept being referred to as one.
Then I met the standard leftist wall of just repeating themselves over and over(ie talking past me) and the conversation ended.
I really can't see the point in supporting radicalism for the sake of it. I think many westerners have been tricked into supporting or accepting radicalism when it serves them absolutely no benefit.
1973
ReplyDeleteWhen I google "arthur calwell white australia", I see book after book that claims Calwell was a passionate advocate of the White Australia policy.
ReplyDeleteYour claim that he wanted "diversity" (i.e., in the non-white sense) goes too far.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteIn 1942 Australia was a largely Anglo-Celtic nation (90%), though with some Germans in South Australia and Italians in north Queensland. As such, it had a very clear sense of its own identity.
Enter Arthur Calwell. His claim was that the identity was too British. Some people say that he thought this way because of his own Irish and American background; others, such as the sources I quoted above, because he thought as a matter of justice and equality that all groups should be equally recognised.
However, he limited "all groups" to "all European groups". He wanted an Australia which was just as much Greek and Dutch and Polish as it was British.
In the context of 1942 that was a very radical step. First, it meant dissolving an existing ethnically related people and replacing it with a more diverse groups of cultures.
Second, it established a principle which led inevitably to the multi-racial Australia of today.
It led inevitably to the policy of today for two reasons. First, in a moral sense, if you passionately believe that it is socially just for different groups to be accepted equally then it sounds arbitrary to limit your acceptance to white groups alone.
Just as importantly, Calwell's policy brought very large numbers of different European ethnicities into Australia, some of whom didn't like things as they were.
In particular some of first generations of southern Europeans didn't like the existing "Aussie" culture, feeling that it didn't represent them. They therefore became leading advocates of multiculturalism - Al Grassby being an exemplar of this.
Caldwell believed that Australia needed to dramatically boost the size of its white population in order to prevent an Asian takeover.
ReplyDeleteAs there were simply not enough Britons willing or able to migrate to Australia after WWII, the decision was made by Caldwell and the ALP to open up immigration to non-British European migrants.
As Mr Richardson points out, the beginning of non-British European immigration eventually paved the way for non-European immigration to Australia. Still, I think Mr Richardson is being a tad harsh on Caldwell. While I'm not expert on the man, I think he believed the future of White Australia depended on opening the doors to a broader number of European nations. He wanted to save it, not destroy it.
*Calwell
ReplyDelete"Just as importantly, Calwell's policy brought very large numbers of different European ethnicities into Australia, some of whom didn't like things as they were."
ReplyDeleteThe post-war European migrant groups were used as pawns by Anglo-Australian muliculturalists who, for whatever reason, resented Australia as it existed in the mid 20th Century (90 percent Anglo-Celtic) and wanted to see the country dramatically transformed via diverse mass immigration.
Take, for instance, former PM Malcolm Fraser.
As Frank Salter notes, the "conservative" Fraser demonstrated a deep antipathy toward old Anglo-Celtic Australia and wanted to see it multiculturalised out of existence, despite being one of its privileged sons.
Salter:
The public had no idea of Fraser's conversion to multiculturalism (in 1973), and he was widely viewed as one of the more conservative Liberal Party leaders. Fraser remarked two decades later, without remorse, "Anglo-Saxon Australia is dead. This isn’t the kind of society we are" (quoted by Lopez 2000, p. 440). This is a remarkably detached statement considering that Fraser was perceived to be of Anglo identity himself, that Anglo Australians constituted an overwhelming majority of the nation as late as 1970. Certainly in 1950 most Australians had a firm identity as a British nation. The Australian nation was founded and built by Anglo-Celts from the initial landing by Captain Arthur Phillip at Botany Bay in 1788, a century of exploring and settling an often harsh continent, through Federation in 1901, the First World War and Gallipoli, and the Second World War in the Pacific and North Africa. What is remarkable is the lack of regret from someone who grew up in that original nation and was one of its privileged sons. Fraser treats traditional Australia as if it were somehow improper, something needing correction. It is a decidedly superior position, and one taken towards his own people.
Source
Meh, I think you are overstating what Calwell wanted to do.
ReplyDeleteHe wanted an Australia which was just as much Greek and Dutch and Polish as it was British.
ReplyDeleteMy personal experience with Italian and Greek kids in the 1970s was that they were indistinguishable from Anglo-Australian kids. Thus, Calwell's idea was not incompatible with a "British" Australia.
Same thing in America. Italian and Greek immigrants have assimilated and their immigration was not incompatible with the USA that existed from 1880 to 1965.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI disagree. You can't say that you want to uphold a British Australia and then populate the country with diverse European ethnicities.
The members of cabinet in the 1940s knew that they were making a radical break with the traditional identity and that they were creating something new.
Second, the process of assimilation was not as smooth as you suggest, especially with the first two generations, including the one that grew up in the 1970s.
Many Italian and Greeks formed a subculture of their own; many went on to support the multicultural movement of the 1970s; and some saw themselves as being victimised by Australian society.
The reality is that the post-War immigration programme was part of the dissolving of an Anglo-Australia and was intended to be so.
What we have to get good at is seeing the larger principles at work and where they logically lead us.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same when it comes to issues like the family. There is no stopping point when it comes to the recasting of family life under liberalism. Once you establish certain principles, then they will be applied over time in ever more radical ways.
If Calwell thought, in 1943, that as a matter of social justice there ought to be a heterogeneous society in which everyone was accepted equally, so that there should be a more diverse immigration programme, then it ought to be obvious that a future liberal thinker would take this one step further than Calwell was willing to do and to want to open up the country to non-European sources of immigration. There is no stopping point once such a way of thinking has been established.
That's why Calwell is so often praised as the father of modern multicultural Australia, despite his non-PC statements about white Australia. Moderns can see that he was the one who made the decisive switch to principles that have made Australia a diverse, multicultural society.
"Many Italian and Greeks formed a subculture of their own; many went on to support the multicultural movement of the 1970s; and some saw themselves as being victimised by Australian society."
ReplyDeleteThe Greeks certainly did. The Italians were a mixed bag in terms of assimilation.
The Dutch, German, Polish and Baltic immigrants assimilated within one generation.
"The reality is that the post-War immigration programme was part of the dissolving of an Anglo-Australia and was intended to be so."
ReplyDeleteWhat about Calwell's "populate or perish" mantra?
As I said earlier, Calwell evidently believed that Australia needed to dramatically boost the size of its white population if it wished to remain an outpost of European civilisation. The threat of Asian inundation was firmly on the ALP's mind when they initiated the post-war European immigration program.
Do you really believe Australia could have sourced enough migrants from the British Isles alone?
As for Anglo-Australia, I don't think it was ever as homogeneous as you suggest. Yes, Anglo-Australians were the dominant group but there was also a significant Irish Catholic minority deeply opposed to all aspects of 'Britishness'.
A couple of interesting quotes from Calwell:
ReplyDelete"Do the multi-racialists want Australia to consist of a small number of people from all the African and Asian nations, or do they want to admit millions of coloured migrants from those nations for permanent settlement in a continent that was first settled 184 years ago by Europeans while other, nearer nations passed it by as a useless, barren land? If Australians are ever foolish enough to open their gates in a significant way to people other than Europeans, they will soon find themselves fighting desperately to stop the nation from being flooded by hordes of non-integratables. Then we will also need a Race Relations Board. None is needed now. A Race Relations Board is necessary only where there are racial problems and racial tensions. We are currently spared this rather expensive luxury."
"Australia can admit a migration intake of only one per cent of the current population each year. There should be no reduction of British, German, Scandinavian, Dutch, Italian, Greek, Maltese or such migrants, but we should tread warily when dealing with applications from certain other countries. The Labor Party's policy on immigration permits of no ambiguity or misrepresentation. Those who think it means that a Labor Government would be authorized to open the flood gates to Indians, Pakistanis, Ceylonese, Indonesians or Caribbean negroes are hopelessly wrong. Such a policy would cause a grievous split and jeopardise Labor's election prospects. Foolish people who try to help their arguments for a multi-racial society by abusing Spaniards, Greeks, Lebanese, Maltese and Italians, betray their own arrogance and sectarianism. The next generation of these good people will be well-educated, devoted citizens. They will be absorbed into the Australian community. The non-Europeans who are troubling the United Kingdom today will always be "chip on the shoulder" citizens. Some of them will always be unhappy misfits while others will become "black power" happy. The British, more than any other people, erred badly in allowing so many Asians and Africans to settle in their country under the guise of being British citizens."
"In May, 1972, I criticized a statement by the Minister for Customs, Mr Don Chipp, who had said that he would like to see a stage, in the 1980s where Australia was becoming the only true multi-racial nation in the world. I said that no red-blooded Australian wanted to see a chocolate-coloured Australia in the 1980s."
"Every country has the inalienable right to determine the composition of its own population. Its policies on immigration are its own affair. It is entitled to enforce them without any interference from any other nation. And this applies equally to every nation, large or small, be it in Asia, Africa, Europe, America or Australia. The question of morality or ethics does not arise and cannot be artificially created."
"I reject, in conscience, the idea that Australia should or can ever become a multi-racial society and survive. More straight-thinking and less intellectual dishonesty are essential for any worthwhile discussion on Australia's restricted immigration policy."
RD,
ReplyDeleteYes, but Calwell's argument is a weak one.
He's saying "Well, having diverse ethnicities, such as Maltese, Spanish and Greek, is being used by some people to promote the idea of an even larger diversity of non-European migration, but that's a false argument because a future generation of Spaniards and Greeks etc will prove to be good, loyal citizens."
Well, those pushing for non-European immigration can make the same sort of claims. They can say that the Chinese will become productive citizens and make a contribution, as will the Indians - and they'll probably be right.
But there'll be no real mainstream ethnicity for anyone to identify with. There'll just be a lifestyle based on career and consumption.
And that's where Calwell didn't help. He didn't uphold the existing mainstream identity.
The threat of Asian inundation was firmly on the ALP's mind when they initiated the post-war European immigration program.
I don't believe so. All of the Western countries went multicultural at much the same time, regardless of population density or regional threats.
There just wasn't the same belief in ethnic homelands anymore. Liberalism had arrived at a point where such beliefs seemed anachronistic. What mattered was the unimpeded individual and the markets.
Calwell wanted diversity, tolerance, non-discrimination - at least amongst the European groups. This was becoming the focus, rather than the significance to the individual of having an ethnic homeland.
You can't say that you want to uphold a British Australia and then populate the country with diverse European ethnicities.
ReplyDeleteSure you can. You just force the non-Brits to act like the other white Australians. This is no more impossible than getting Italian-Americans to act like British-Americans or German-Americans.
The members of cabinet in the 1940s knew that they were making a radical break with the traditional identity and that they were creating something new.
That is not at all clear from any of the quotes I have found from 1942.
the process of assimilation was not as smooth as you suggest, especially with the first two generations, including the one that grew up in the 1970s.
Those were the ones I went to school with. I didn't see any problems at all. Giuseppe and Andreas were no different from James and Ian.
Many Italian and Greeks formed a subculture of their own; many went on to support the multicultural movement of the 1970s
The leaders of the multi-culti stupidity were Anglos, not Greeks and Italians.
Yes, Anglo-Australians were the dominant group but there was also a significant Irish Catholic minority deeply opposed to all aspects of 'Britishness'.
Yup, back in the 1970s I definitely remember the term "Pommie Bastards" being tossed around a lot in Sydney.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteThat's the assimilationist dream. You take people from anywhere and force them to act like the original Anglos would.
It doesn't work out that way. First, it's unfair to the Anglos - you're saying to them that an Anglo culture gets to survive but not an Anglo population.
Second, many of the immigrants don't want to assimilate to a foreign ethnic culture. They have an identity of their own which they wish to retain.
Third, when you change the ethnic mix you change the culture. There is something, for instance, about southern Europeans, especially the women, that makes them much less reserved than your average Anglo.
Fourth, there is nothing to stop the principle from being extended; if you didn't notice anything different about the diversity of the 1970s, then your own children might not notice anything different about an extended diversity, e.g. about Sandeep or Xui Li.
We need to try, as much as we can, to uphold the real historic peoples of the world. Calwell took a step away from that, which is why modern day liberals love him, despite his politically incorrect statements on race.