Mobility and change

Mobility & ChangeThe Racial State Week 6

Dr Alana [email protected]

Kanaka Sugar Plantation Workers

Tuesday, 9 April 13

Overview

• Federating whiteness• What is multiculturalism?• The insufficiency of recognition• Multiculturalism in crisis?• Recreating whitenesses

Tuesday, 9 April 13White Australia as foundational to the federation of Australia

The move to multiculturalism

The critiques of multiculturalism, including from an Aboriginal perspective (link to Week 5)

Is multiculturalism in crisis? amplification of global trends and particularity of the Australian debate since Howard.

Stratton: Temporary visa programme recreates whiteness in the context of a purported crisis of multiculturalism.

Demographic shifts inevitably create multicultural society. What do events such as the attacks on Indian students say about what kind of society Australians want and what the role of race is within that?

Federating Whiteness

Tuesday, 9 April 131. Multicultural realities:At the turn of the of the 20th century, Australia was becoming a multicultural society.Although, the country was 98% white, the discovery of gold (the gold rush) was leading to immigration from around the world. Between 1850 and 1870, 50,000 Chinese had settled in NSW.

Workers from the Pacific Islands were being brought in to work as indentured labourers, e.g. on sugar plantations.

Before Federation in 1901, the possibility existed for Australia to become an immigration nation.

2. Workers’ Paradise:

The Labour movement objected to foreign workers, arguing that they reduced wages and working conditions and refused to become unionised (arguably they could not be).

Between 1875 and 1888, all states restricted Chinese immigration.

The Natal Act of 1897 was introduced, restricting "undesirable persons" of any race.

In line with racial ideas of the time, which taught the dangers of permitting race-mixing, Australia had to be kept white of it wanted to survive as a ‘civilised’ nation.

At the time of Federation, in 1901, there was a lot invested in the idea of Australia as a ‘working man’s paradise’. Workers had better pay and conditions than in other countries of the British Empire, Australia saw itself as more egalitarian (e.g. women had the vote earlier than in Europe).

However, the workers’ paradise idea referred to white workers. Aboriginal people, indentured labourers and ‘Asian’ immigrants, did not have the same benefits.

Organised labour in conjunction with the new leaders of a federated Australia felt that in order to preserve ‘paradise’, it would be necessary to restrict the entry of those deemed racially incompatible.

[show film]

3. White Australia Policy:

Real name: Immigration Restriction Act - one of the first pieces of legislation passed by new federal parliament in 1901 (one of the 1st pieces of immigration legislation in the world).

Edmund Barton, the prime minister, argued in support of the Bill with the following statement: "The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman."

The Bill put in place a similar policy to that in Sth Africa:

But Australia could not be openly offensive to other members of the British Empire (e.g. India) or to the Japanese, so a dictation test was introduced to weed out the unwanted. The test was impossible to pass (sometimes other European languages than English were used).

The White Australia Policy persisted throughout the Second World War, during which Prime Minister Curtin defended the policy saying, ‘"This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race."

It only is challenged after the war when the realisation that Australia must ‘populate or perish’ takes hold.

4. Populate or Perish

This shift in policy allowed for 800 non-white refugees (e.g. Malays, Japanese, Indonesians) to apply for Australian residency (where before the proposal had been to replace them) in 1949. White European refugees were not restricted.

Active policy now to recruit immigrants from Southern Europe (extending the definition of white). Italians, Greeks and Yugoslavs would not have been seen as white at this time, but the definition of whiteness was extended to curb Asian migration and shore up numbers against the indigenous population.

1950-1964: immigration restrictions gradually relaxed.

1966: Migration Act - effectively dismantled White Australia Policy.

1973: Official dismantling of the policy. Act amended to include:

Legislated that all migrants, regardless of origin, be eligible to obtain citizenship after three years of permanent residence.Ratified all international agreements relating to immigration and race.Issued policy to totally disregard race as a factor in selecting migrants.

Although officially abolished, we shall see later how relics of the White Australia Policy persist in attitudes and policy-making on immigration (Stratton).

1975: Introduction of Racial Discrimination Act

1978: Removal of selection criteria based on country of origin finally removed from the policy.

Multicultural realitiesFederating Whiteness

Tuesday, 9 April 131. Multicultural realities:At the turn of the of the 20th century, Australia was becoming a multicultural society.Although, the country was 98% white, the discovery of gold (the gold rush) was leading to immigration from around the world. Between 1850 and 1870, 50,000 Chinese had settled in NSW.

Workers from the Pacific Islands were being brought in to work as indentured labourers, e.g. on sugar plantations.

Before Federation in 1901, the possibility existed for Australia to become an immigration nation.

2. Workers’ Paradise:

The Labour movement objected to foreign workers, arguing that they reduced wages and working conditions and refused to become unionised (arguably they could not be).

Between 1875 and 1888, all states restricted Chinese immigration.

The Natal Act of 1897 was introduced, restricting "undesirable persons" of any race.

In line with racial ideas of the time, which taught the dangers of permitting race-mixing, Australia had to be kept white of it wanted to survive as a ‘civilised’ nation.

At the time of Federation, in 1901, there was a lot invested in the idea of Australia as a ‘working man’s paradise’. Workers had better pay and conditions than in other countries of the British Empire, Australia saw itself as more egalitarian (e.g. women had the vote earlier than in Europe).

However, the workers’ paradise idea referred to white workers. Aboriginal people, indentured labourers and ‘Asian’ immigrants, did not have the same benefits.

Organised labour in conjunction with the new leaders of a federated Australia felt that in order to preserve ‘paradise’, it would be necessary to restrict the entry of those deemed racially incompatible.

[show film]

3. White Australia Policy:

Real name: Immigration Restriction Act - one of the first pieces of legislation passed by new federal parliament in 1901 (one of the 1st pieces of immigration legislation in the world).

Edmund Barton, the prime minister, argued in support of the Bill with the following statement: "The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman."

The Bill put in place a similar policy to that in Sth Africa:

But Australia could not be openly offensive to other members of the British Empire (e.g. India) or to the Japanese, so a dictation test was introduced to weed out the unwanted. The test was impossible to pass (sometimes other European languages than English were used).

The White Australia Policy persisted throughout the Second World War, during which Prime Minister Curtin defended the policy saying, ‘"This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race."

It only is challenged after the war when the realisation that Australia must ‘populate or perish’ takes hold.

4. Populate or Perish

This shift in policy allowed for 800 non-white refugees (e.g. Malays, Japanese, Indonesians) to apply for Australian residency (where before the proposal had been to replace them) in 1949. White European refugees were not restricted.

Active policy now to recruit immigrants from Southern Europe (extending the definition of white). Italians, Greeks and Yugoslavs would not have been seen as white at this time, but the definition of whiteness was extended to curb Asian migration and shore up numbers against the indigenous population.

1950-1964: immigration restrictions gradually relaxed.

1966: Migration Act - effectively dismantled White Australia Policy.

1973: Official dismantling of the policy. Act amended to include:

Legislated that all migrants, regardless of origin, be eligible to obtain citizenship after three years of permanent residence.Ratified all international agreements relating to immigration and race.Issued policy to totally disregard race as a factor in selecting migrants.

Although officially abolished, we shall see later how relics of the White Australia Policy persist in attitudes and policy-making on immigration (Stratton).

1975: Introduction of Racial Discrimination Act

1978: Removal of selection criteria based on country of origin finally removed from the policy.

Multicultural realities ‘Workers’ Paradise’

Federating Whiteness

Tuesday, 9 April 131. Multicultural realities:At the turn of the of the 20th century, Australia was becoming a multicultural society.Although, the country was 98% white, the discovery of gold (the gold rush) was leading to immigration from around the world. Between 1850 and 1870, 50,000 Chinese had settled in NSW.

Workers from the Pacific Islands were being brought in to work as indentured labourers, e.g. on sugar plantations.

Before Federation in 1901, the possibility existed for Australia to become an immigration nation.

2. Workers’ Paradise:

The Labour movement objected to foreign workers, arguing that they reduced wages and working conditions and refused to become unionised (arguably they could not be).

Between 1875 and 1888, all states restricted Chinese immigration.

The Natal Act of 1897 was introduced, restricting "undesirable persons" of any race.

In line with racial ideas of the time, which taught the dangers of permitting race-mixing, Australia had to be kept white of it wanted to survive as a ‘civilised’ nation.

At the time of Federation, in 1901, there was a lot invested in the idea of Australia as a ‘working man’s paradise’. Workers had better pay and conditions than in other countries of the British Empire, Australia saw itself as more egalitarian (e.g. women had the vote earlier than in Europe).

However, the workers’ paradise idea referred to white workers. Aboriginal people, indentured labourers and ‘Asian’ immigrants, did not have the same benefits.

Organised labour in conjunction with the new leaders of a federated Australia felt that in order to preserve ‘paradise’, it would be necessary to restrict the entry of those deemed racially incompatible.

[show film]

3. White Australia Policy:

Real name: Immigration Restriction Act - one of the first pieces of legislation passed by new federal parliament in 1901 (one of the 1st pieces of immigration legislation in the world).

Edmund Barton, the prime minister, argued in support of the Bill with the following statement: "The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman."

The Bill put in place a similar policy to that in Sth Africa:

But Australia could not be openly offensive to other members of the British Empire (e.g. India) or to the Japanese, so a dictation test was introduced to weed out the unwanted. The test was impossible to pass (sometimes other European languages than English were used).

The White Australia Policy persisted throughout the Second World War, during which Prime Minister Curtin defended the policy saying, ‘"This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race."

It only is challenged after the war when the realisation that Australia must ‘populate or perish’ takes hold.

4. Populate or Perish

This shift in policy allowed for 800 non-white refugees (e.g. Malays, Japanese, Indonesians) to apply for Australian residency (where before the proposal had been to replace them) in 1949. White European refugees were not restricted.

Active policy now to recruit immigrants from Southern Europe (extending the definition of white). Italians, Greeks and Yugoslavs would not have been seen as white at this time, but the definition of whiteness was extended to curb Asian migration and shore up numbers against the indigenous population.

1950-1964: immigration restrictions gradually relaxed.

1966: Migration Act - effectively dismantled White Australia Policy.

1973: Official dismantling of the policy. Act amended to include:

Legislated that all migrants, regardless of origin, be eligible to obtain citizenship after three years of permanent residence.Ratified all international agreements relating to immigration and race.Issued policy to totally disregard race as a factor in selecting migrants.

Although officially abolished, we shall see later how relics of the White Australia Policy persist in attitudes and policy-making on immigration (Stratton).

1975: Introduction of Racial Discrimination Act

1978: Removal of selection criteria based on country of origin finally removed from the policy.

Multicultural realities ‘Workers’ Paradise’

Federating Whiteness

Tuesday, 9 April 131. Multicultural realities:At the turn of the of the 20th century, Australia was becoming a multicultural society.Although, the country was 98% white, the discovery of gold (the gold rush) was leading to immigration from around the world. Between 1850 and 1870, 50,000 Chinese had settled in NSW.

Workers from the Pacific Islands were being brought in to work as indentured labourers, e.g. on sugar plantations.

Before Federation in 1901, the possibility existed for Australia to become an immigration nation.

2. Workers’ Paradise:

The Labour movement objected to foreign workers, arguing that they reduced wages and working conditions and refused to become unionised (arguably they could not be).

Between 1875 and 1888, all states restricted Chinese immigration.

The Natal Act of 1897 was introduced, restricting "undesirable persons" of any race.

In line with racial ideas of the time, which taught the dangers of permitting race-mixing, Australia had to be kept white of it wanted to survive as a ‘civilised’ nation.

At the time of Federation, in 1901, there was a lot invested in the idea of Australia as a ‘working man’s paradise’. Workers had better pay and conditions than in other countries of the British Empire, Australia saw itself as more egalitarian (e.g. women had the vote earlier than in Europe).

However, the workers’ paradise idea referred to white workers. Aboriginal people, indentured labourers and ‘Asian’ immigrants, did not have the same benefits.

Organised labour in conjunction with the new leaders of a federated Australia felt that in order to preserve ‘paradise’, it would be necessary to restrict the entry of those deemed racially incompatible.

[show film]

3. White Australia Policy:

Real name: Immigration Restriction Act - one of the first pieces of legislation passed by new federal parliament in 1901 (one of the 1st pieces of immigration legislation in the world).

Edmund Barton, the prime minister, argued in support of the Bill with the following statement: "The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman."

The Bill put in place a similar policy to that in Sth Africa:

But Australia could not be openly offensive to other members of the British Empire (e.g. India) or to the Japanese, so a dictation test was introduced to weed out the unwanted. The test was impossible to pass (sometimes other European languages than English were used).

The White Australia Policy persisted throughout the Second World War, during which Prime Minister Curtin defended the policy saying, ‘"This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race."

It only is challenged after the war when the realisation that Australia must ‘populate or perish’ takes hold.

4. Populate or Perish

This shift in policy allowed for 800 non-white refugees (e.g. Malays, Japanese, Indonesians) to apply for Australian residency (where before the proposal had been to replace them) in 1949. White European refugees were not restricted.

Active policy now to recruit immigrants from Southern Europe (extending the definition of white). Italians, Greeks and Yugoslavs would not have been seen as white at this time, but the definition of whiteness was extended to curb Asian migration and shore up numbers against the indigenous population.

1950-1964: immigration restrictions gradually relaxed.

1966: Migration Act - effectively dismantled White Australia Policy.

1973: Official dismantling of the policy. Act amended to include:

Legislated that all migrants, regardless of origin, be eligible to obtain citizenship after three years of permanent residence.Ratified all international agreements relating to immigration and race.Issued policy to totally disregard race as a factor in selecting migrants.

Although officially abolished, we shall see later how relics of the White Australia Policy persist in attitudes and policy-making on immigration (Stratton).

1975: Introduction of Racial Discrimination Act

1978: Removal of selection criteria based on country of origin finally removed from the policy.

Multicultural realities ‘Workers’ Paradise’

Federating Whiteness

The White Australia Policy

Tuesday, 9 April 131. Multicultural realities:At the turn of the of the 20th century, Australia was becoming a multicultural society.Although, the country was 98% white, the discovery of gold (the gold rush) was leading to immigration from around the world. Between 1850 and 1870, 50,000 Chinese had settled in NSW.

Workers from the Pacific Islands were being brought in to work as indentured labourers, e.g. on sugar plantations.

Before Federation in 1901, the possibility existed for Australia to become an immigration nation.

2. Workers’ Paradise:

The Labour movement objected to foreign workers, arguing that they reduced wages and working conditions and refused to become unionised (arguably they could not be).

Between 1875 and 1888, all states restricted Chinese immigration.

The Natal Act of 1897 was introduced, restricting "undesirable persons" of any race.

In line with racial ideas of the time, which taught the dangers of permitting race-mixing, Australia had to be kept white of it wanted to survive as a ‘civilised’ nation.

At the time of Federation, in 1901, there was a lot invested in the idea of Australia as a ‘working man’s paradise’. Workers had better pay and conditions than in other countries of the British Empire, Australia saw itself as more egalitarian (e.g. women had the vote earlier than in Europe).

However, the workers’ paradise idea referred to white workers. Aboriginal people, indentured labourers and ‘Asian’ immigrants, did not have the same benefits.

Organised labour in conjunction with the new leaders of a federated Australia felt that in order to preserve ‘paradise’, it would be necessary to restrict the entry of those deemed racially incompatible.

[show film]

3. White Australia Policy:

Real name: Immigration Restriction Act - one of the first pieces of legislation passed by new federal parliament in 1901 (one of the 1st pieces of immigration legislation in the world).

Edmund Barton, the prime minister, argued in support of the Bill with the following statement: "The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman."

The Bill put in place a similar policy to that in Sth Africa:

But Australia could not be openly offensive to other members of the British Empire (e.g. India) or to the Japanese, so a dictation test was introduced to weed out the unwanted. The test was impossible to pass (sometimes other European languages than English were used).

The White Australia Policy persisted throughout the Second World War, during which Prime Minister Curtin defended the policy saying, ‘"This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race."

It only is challenged after the war when the realisation that Australia must ‘populate or perish’ takes hold.

4. Populate or Perish

This shift in policy allowed for 800 non-white refugees (e.g. Malays, Japanese, Indonesians) to apply for Australian residency (where before the proposal had been to replace them) in 1949. White European refugees were not restricted.

Active policy now to recruit immigrants from Southern Europe (extending the definition of white). Italians, Greeks and Yugoslavs would not have been seen as white at this time, but the definition of whiteness was extended to curb Asian migration and shore up numbers against the indigenous population.

1950-1964: immigration restrictions gradually relaxed.

1966: Migration Act - effectively dismantled White Australia Policy.

1973: Official dismantling of the policy. Act amended to include:

Legislated that all migrants, regardless of origin, be eligible to obtain citizenship after three years of permanent residence.Ratified all international agreements relating to immigration and race.Issued policy to totally disregard race as a factor in selecting migrants.

Although officially abolished, we shall see later how relics of the White Australia Policy persist in attitudes and policy-making on immigration (Stratton).

1975: Introduction of Racial Discrimination Act

1978: Removal of selection criteria based on country of origin finally removed from the policy.

Multicultural realities ‘Workers’ Paradise’

Federating Whiteness‘This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race’

Prime Minister John Curtin, 1939

The White Australia Policy

Tuesday, 9 April 131. Multicultural realities:At the turn of the of the 20th century, Australia was becoming a multicultural society.Although, the country was 98% white, the discovery of gold (the gold rush) was leading to immigration from around the world. Between 1850 and 1870, 50,000 Chinese had settled in NSW.

Workers from the Pacific Islands were being brought in to work as indentured labourers, e.g. on sugar plantations.

Before Federation in 1901, the possibility existed for Australia to become an immigration nation.

2. Workers’ Paradise:

The Labour movement objected to foreign workers, arguing that they reduced wages and working conditions and refused to become unionised (arguably they could not be).

Between 1875 and 1888, all states restricted Chinese immigration.

The Natal Act of 1897 was introduced, restricting "undesirable persons" of any race.

In line with racial ideas of the time, which taught the dangers of permitting race-mixing, Australia had to be kept white of it wanted to survive as a ‘civilised’ nation.

At the time of Federation, in 1901, there was a lot invested in the idea of Australia as a ‘working man’s paradise’. Workers had better pay and conditions than in other countries of the British Empire, Australia saw itself as more egalitarian (e.g. women had the vote earlier than in Europe).

However, the workers’ paradise idea referred to white workers. Aboriginal people, indentured labourers and ‘Asian’ immigrants, did not have the same benefits.

Organised labour in conjunction with the new leaders of a federated Australia felt that in order to preserve ‘paradise’, it would be necessary to restrict the entry of those deemed racially incompatible.

[show film]

3. White Australia Policy:

Real name: Immigration Restriction Act - one of the first pieces of legislation passed by new federal parliament in 1901 (one of the 1st pieces of immigration legislation in the world).

Edmund Barton, the prime minister, argued in support of the Bill with the following statement: "The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman."

The Bill put in place a similar policy to that in Sth Africa:

But Australia could not be openly offensive to other members of the British Empire (e.g. India) or to the Japanese, so a dictation test was introduced to weed out the unwanted. The test was impossible to pass (sometimes other European languages than English were used).

The White Australia Policy persisted throughout the Second World War, during which Prime Minister Curtin defended the policy saying, ‘"This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race."

It only is challenged after the war when the realisation that Australia must ‘populate or perish’ takes hold.

4. Populate or Perish

This shift in policy allowed for 800 non-white refugees (e.g. Malays, Japanese, Indonesians) to apply for Australian residency (where before the proposal had been to replace them) in 1949. White European refugees were not restricted.

Active policy now to recruit immigrants from Southern Europe (extending the definition of white). Italians, Greeks and Yugoslavs would not have been seen as white at this time, but the definition of whiteness was extended to curb Asian migration and shore up numbers against the indigenous population.

1950-1964: immigration restrictions gradually relaxed.

1966: Migration Act - effectively dismantled White Australia Policy.

1973: Official dismantling of the policy. Act amended to include:

Legislated that all migrants, regardless of origin, be eligible to obtain citizenship after three years of permanent residence.Ratified all international agreements relating to immigration and race.Issued policy to totally disregard race as a factor in selecting migrants.

Although officially abolished, we shall see later how relics of the White Australia Policy persist in attitudes and policy-making on immigration (Stratton).

1975: Introduction of Racial Discrimination Act

1978: Removal of selection criteria based on country of origin finally removed from the policy.

Multicultural realities ‘Workers’ Paradise’

Federating Whiteness‘This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race’

Prime Minister John Curtin, 1939

The White Australia Policy‘Populate or Perish’

Tuesday, 9 April 131. Multicultural realities:At the turn of the of the 20th century, Australia was becoming a multicultural society.Although, the country was 98% white, the discovery of gold (the gold rush) was leading to immigration from around the world. Between 1850 and 1870, 50,000 Chinese had settled in NSW.

Workers from the Pacific Islands were being brought in to work as indentured labourers, e.g. on sugar plantations.

Before Federation in 1901, the possibility existed for Australia to become an immigration nation.

2. Workers’ Paradise:

The Labour movement objected to foreign workers, arguing that they reduced wages and working conditions and refused to become unionised (arguably they could not be).

Between 1875 and 1888, all states restricted Chinese immigration.

The Natal Act of 1897 was introduced, restricting "undesirable persons" of any race.

In line with racial ideas of the time, which taught the dangers of permitting race-mixing, Australia had to be kept white of it wanted to survive as a ‘civilised’ nation.

At the time of Federation, in 1901, there was a lot invested in the idea of Australia as a ‘working man’s paradise’. Workers had better pay and conditions than in other countries of the British Empire, Australia saw itself as more egalitarian (e.g. women had the vote earlier than in Europe).

However, the workers’ paradise idea referred to white workers. Aboriginal people, indentured labourers and ‘Asian’ immigrants, did not have the same benefits.

Organised labour in conjunction with the new leaders of a federated Australia felt that in order to preserve ‘paradise’, it would be necessary to restrict the entry of those deemed racially incompatible.

[show film]

3. White Australia Policy:

Real name: Immigration Restriction Act - one of the first pieces of legislation passed by new federal parliament in 1901 (one of the 1st pieces of immigration legislation in the world).

Edmund Barton, the prime minister, argued in support of the Bill with the following statement: "The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman."

The Bill put in place a similar policy to that in Sth Africa:

But Australia could not be openly offensive to other members of the British Empire (e.g. India) or to the Japanese, so a dictation test was introduced to weed out the unwanted. The test was impossible to pass (sometimes other European languages than English were used).

The White Australia Policy persisted throughout the Second World War, during which Prime Minister Curtin defended the policy saying, ‘"This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race."

It only is challenged after the war when the realisation that Australia must ‘populate or perish’ takes hold.

4. Populate or Perish

This shift in policy allowed for 800 non-white refugees (e.g. Malays, Japanese, Indonesians) to apply for Australian residency (where before the proposal had been to replace them) in 1949. White European refugees were not restricted.

Active policy now to recruit immigrants from Southern Europe (extending the definition of white). Italians, Greeks and Yugoslavs would not have been seen as white at this time, but the definition of whiteness was extended to curb Asian migration and shore up numbers against the indigenous population.

1950-1964: immigration restrictions gradually relaxed.

1966: Migration Act - effectively dismantled White Australia Policy.

1973: Official dismantling of the policy. Act amended to include:

Legislated that all migrants, regardless of origin, be eligible to obtain citizenship after three years of permanent residence.Ratified all international agreements relating to immigration and race.Issued policy to totally disregard race as a factor in selecting migrants.

Although officially abolished, we shall see later how relics of the White Australia Policy persist in attitudes and policy-making on immigration (Stratton).

1975: Introduction of Racial Discrimination Act

1978: Removal of selection criteria based on country of origin finally removed from the policy.

AssimilationTuesday, 9 April 131966: First relaxing of WA Policy is in the context of promising that only immigrants who would integrate into Australia would be accepted.

In Australia, the term assimilation has a significant meaning because it was also the policy enacted towards indigenous people and Torres Strait Islanders. The practice of ‘stealing’ children from their families to be resettled with white families is an extreme example of this policy. The ultimate aim was to eradicate indigenous culture/people. Poynting and Mason call this a ‘cultural genocide’.

Assimilation, as applied to new immigrants meant encouraging ‘new Australians’ to adopt the culture and language of the dominant Anglo group. Immigrants were seen as wishing to do this. However, the Australian state offered little assistance. There was little to no language training. ‘Immigrants of language backgrounds other than English were expected to learn the language more or less by osmosis’ (Poynting and Mason 2008: 233).

“The melting pot doesn’t melt” Anthias & Yuval-Davis (1992)

Tuesday, 9 April 13Multiculturalism emerged from the realisation... that the melting pot doesn’t melt and that ethnic and racial divisions get reproduced from generation to generation.” (Anthias and Yuval-Davis, 1992: 158).

A Salad Bowl of Cultures

‘Measures must also be taken to preserve and strengthen the cultural heritage of newcomers so as to enrich and develop the sensitivity of the resulting new community’

Philip Lynch, Immigration Minister 1971

Tuesday, 9 April 13Integration bridged the gap between assimilation and multiculturalism.

1971: As Immigration Minister, Philip Lynch recognised the increasing cultural diversity made possible by the ending of the White Australia Policy and he noted that ‘most of us welcome variety in our developing national identity’.

However, he opposed the notion of, as he put it, ‘undigested minorities’, living in enclaves separate to the rest of society. He opposed the idea of those of immigrant origin living apart from other groups in society, refusing to intermarry with others and demanding separate political representation.

Multiculturalism emerged in response to the fact that, despite these good intentions, discrimination against those of a non-Anglo background did not melt away in the new Australia. Multiculturalism, according to Poynting and Mason, was essentially a response to the fact that those of a non-English-speaking background continued to face many disadvantages.

Multiculturalism was originally developed in Canada and was exported to Australia in response to the increasing demands of well-organised groups of people from migrant backgrounds, Italians and Greeks in particular, to be equally recognised in the Anglo dominated landscape of Australia.

Multiculturalism, as opposed to the melting pot metaphor of assimilation, may be compared to a salad bowl where every ingredient is distinct. Cultural pluralism was seen as integral to social equality.

[CLICK TO REVEAL QUOTE 2] In 1973, Immigration minister Al Grassby said ‘My concept of a society able to sustain growth and change without disintegration is a society based on equality for all’.

The state policy of multiculturalism involves working to support the preservation of minority cultures by giving funding to the initiatives of community groups, or through promoting knowledge of non-dominant cultures in education, broadcasting, and so on.

[CLICK TO REVEAL QUOTE] The 2011 Multicultural Policy of Australia declares ‘The Australian Government is unwavering in its commitment to a multicultural Australia. Australia’s multicultural composition is at the heart of our national identity and is intrinsic to our history and character.’

In that sense it is quite unique in comparison to other countries.

The emphasis of the policy is on ‘shared values’, seen as Australian values - most importantly ‘fairness’ - and respect for cultural difference, and the permission to practice diversity without discrimination.

A Salad Bowl of Cultures

‘My concept of a society able to sustain growth and change without disintegration is a society based on equality for all’Al Grassby, Immigration Minister 1973

Tuesday, 9 April 13Integration bridged the gap between assimilation and multiculturalism.

1971: As Immigration Minister, Philip Lynch recognised the increasing cultural diversity made possible by the ending of the White Australia Policy and he noted that ‘most of us welcome variety in our developing national identity’.

However, he opposed the notion of, as he put it, ‘undigested minorities’, living in enclaves separate to the rest of society. He opposed the idea of those of immigrant origin living apart from other groups in society, refusing to intermarry with others and demanding separate political representation.

Multiculturalism emerged in response to the fact that, despite these good intentions, discrimination against those of a non-Anglo background did not melt away in the new Australia. Multiculturalism, according to Poynting and Mason, was essentially a response to the fact that those of a non-English-speaking background continued to face many disadvantages.

Multiculturalism was originally developed in Canada and was exported to Australia in response to the increasing demands of well-organised groups of people from migrant backgrounds, Italians and Greeks in particular, to be equally recognised in the Anglo dominated landscape of Australia.

Multiculturalism, as opposed to the melting pot metaphor of assimilation, may be compared to a salad bowl where every ingredient is distinct. Cultural pluralism was seen as integral to social equality.

[CLICK TO REVEAL QUOTE 2] In 1973, Immigration minister Al Grassby said ‘My concept of a society able to sustain growth and change without disintegration is a society based on equality for all’.

The state policy of multiculturalism involves working to support the preservation of minority cultures by giving funding to the initiatives of community groups, or through promoting knowledge of non-dominant cultures in education, broadcasting, and so on.

[CLICK TO REVEAL QUOTE] The 2011 Multicultural Policy of Australia declares ‘The Australian Government is unwavering in its commitment to a multicultural Australia. Australia’s multicultural composition is at the heart of our national identity and is intrinsic to our history and character.’

In that sense it is quite unique in comparison to other countries.

The emphasis of the policy is on ‘shared values’, seen as Australian values - most importantly ‘fairness’ - and respect for cultural difference, and the permission to practice diversity without discrimination.

A Salad Bowl of Cultures

The Australian Government is unwavering in its commitment to a multicultural Australia. Australia’s multicultural composition is at the heart of our national identity and is intrinsic to our history and character

The People of Australia, 2011

Tuesday, 9 April 13Integration bridged the gap between assimilation and multiculturalism.

1971: As Immigration Minister, Philip Lynch recognised the increasing cultural diversity made possible by the ending of the White Australia Policy and he noted that ‘most of us welcome variety in our developing national identity’.

However, he opposed the notion of, as he put it, ‘undigested minorities’, living in enclaves separate to the rest of society. He opposed the idea of those of immigrant origin living apart from other groups in society, refusing to intermarry with others and demanding separate political representation.

Multiculturalism emerged in response to the fact that, despite these good intentions, discrimination against those of a non-Anglo background did not melt away in the new Australia. Multiculturalism, according to Poynting and Mason, was essentially a response to the fact that those of a non-English-speaking background continued to face many disadvantages.

Multiculturalism was originally developed in Canada and was exported to Australia in response to the increasing demands of well-organised groups of people from migrant backgrounds, Italians and Greeks in particular, to be equally recognised in the Anglo dominated landscape of Australia.

Multiculturalism, as opposed to the melting pot metaphor of assimilation, may be compared to a salad bowl where every ingredient is distinct. Cultural pluralism was seen as integral to social equality.

[CLICK TO REVEAL QUOTE 2] In 1973, Immigration minister Al Grassby said ‘My concept of a society able to sustain growth and change without disintegration is a society based on equality for all’.

The state policy of multiculturalism involves working to support the preservation of minority cultures by giving funding to the initiatives of community groups, or through promoting knowledge of non-dominant cultures in education, broadcasting, and so on.

[CLICK TO REVEAL QUOTE] The 2011 Multicultural Policy of Australia declares ‘The Australian Government is unwavering in its commitment to a multicultural Australia. Australia’s multicultural composition is at the heart of our national identity and is intrinsic to our history and character.’

In that sense it is quite unique in comparison to other countries.

The emphasis of the policy is on ‘shared values’, seen as Australian values - most importantly ‘fairness’ - and respect for cultural difference, and the permission to practice diversity without discrimination.

Two types of Multiculturalism

Goldberg, 2004

Tuesday, 9 April 13Goldberg notes that it is important to distinguish between two types of multiculturalism.

Multicultural policies can be described as prescriptive - they prescribe a solution to a societal problem.

But often when we think about what multiculturalism means we are being descriptive. In other words, we are merely describing our lived reality - what we see on the streets when we walk around, the kind of interaction we have with people, the fact that people come from different backgrounds and all live together. This is descriptive multiculturalism.

The sociologist, Amanda Wise, calls this ‘everyday multiculturalism’, or a ‘true multiculturalism of place sharing’ in which people from different backgrounds are flung together and have to interact across cultural boundaries.

When I go on to talk about the idea that multiculturalism is in crisis, it will be important to note that what is generally under attack is not multicultural policy, which still exists in Australia and elsewhere is various forms, but the lived multiculture or descriptive multiculturalism that we all experience. The problem with multiculturalism is, as British writer David Goodhart put it, a problem with ‘too much diversity’.

Prescriptive

Two types of Multiculturalism

Goldberg, 2004

Tuesday, 9 April 13Goldberg notes that it is important to distinguish between two types of multiculturalism.

Multicultural policies can be described as prescriptive - they prescribe a solution to a societal problem.

But often when we think about what multiculturalism means we are being descriptive. In other words, we are merely describing our lived reality - what we see on the streets when we walk around, the kind of interaction we have with people, the fact that people come from different backgrounds and all live together. This is descriptive multiculturalism.

The sociologist, Amanda Wise, calls this ‘everyday multiculturalism’, or a ‘true multiculturalism of place sharing’ in which people from different backgrounds are flung together and have to interact across cultural boundaries.

When I go on to talk about the idea that multiculturalism is in crisis, it will be important to note that what is generally under attack is not multicultural policy, which still exists in Australia and elsewhere is various forms, but the lived multiculture or descriptive multiculturalism that we all experience. The problem with multiculturalism is, as British writer David Goodhart put it, a problem with ‘too much diversity’.

Prescriptive

Descriptive

Two types of Multiculturalism

Goldberg, 2004

Tuesday, 9 April 13Goldberg notes that it is important to distinguish between two types of multiculturalism.

Multicultural policies can be described as prescriptive - they prescribe a solution to a societal problem.

But often when we think about what multiculturalism means we are being descriptive. In other words, we are merely describing our lived reality - what we see on the streets when we walk around, the kind of interaction we have with people, the fact that people come from different backgrounds and all live together. This is descriptive multiculturalism.

The sociologist, Amanda Wise, calls this ‘everyday multiculturalism’, or a ‘true multiculturalism of place sharing’ in which people from different backgrounds are flung together and have to interact across cultural boundaries.

When I go on to talk about the idea that multiculturalism is in crisis, it will be important to note that what is generally under attack is not multicultural policy, which still exists in Australia and elsewhere is various forms, but the lived multiculture or descriptive multiculturalism that we all experience. The problem with multiculturalism is, as British writer David Goodhart put it, a problem with ‘too much diversity’.

The problem with multiculturalism

‘Multiculturalism constructs society as composed of a hegemonic homogeneous majority and small unmeltable minorities’

Anthias & Yuval-Davis, 1992

Tuesday, 9 April 13Multicultural policy has been critiqued by many people since its introduction in Canada, the US, the UK and Australia from the 1970s on.

One of the most important critiques is that multiculturalism is based on a reified or essentialist view of culture.

In other words... Each cultural group is seen as being internally homogeneous. It does not allow for variation within these groups or the fact that there are always people with different interests, needs and desires within any group that is identified as a cultural group. So, just because someone is Lebanese does not mean that they will necessarily share much in common with someone else of the same origin.

Multiculturalism does not allow for this hybridity.

At the same time, the dominant cultural group is considered neutral. So, Anglos in Australia are not seen as just another cultural group among others. Rather their culture is the standard or neutral norm, and everyone else fits in around it. Arguably, then multicultural policy does little to encourage the transformation of majority culture. Rather the dominant culture can remain untouched by multiculturalism in any deep sense, except perhaps through the availability of more varieties of food, styles and so on.

Multiculturalism is, for those in the dominant cultural group, a mere issue of lifestyle whereas, for minorities, it is the frame through which they are viewed and expected to conform to this culturalist vision of their lives. By focusing on culture, multiculturalism might ignore the other aspects that are important for individuals, especially those who have traditionally been disadvantaged such as migrants, e.g. jobs, housing, education, health, and so on.

As Poynting and Mason show, the emphasis on this cultural view of minority groups often led to these groups being stereotyped in ways that were counterproductive to what multiculturalism wanted to achieve. The complexity of culture was reduced to exotic food and national dress, music and dance.

The focus on minority ‘culture’ in the public sphere could also cause resentment among those of the dominant culture who felt left out of multicultural festivities because they did not have a particular culture to perform.

Nevertheless, according to Poynting and Mason, multicultural policies were successful in easing intercommunal tensions in Australia throughout the 1970s and 1980s. There were no real ghettoes or ‘race riots’ of the type seen in the US, Britain, or France for example.

But, the sticking point (until more recent Islamophobia and attacks on MC) was Aboriginal claims to recognition.

The Rise of One Nation‘I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished.’

Pauline Hanson, 1996

Tuesday, 9 April 13Australia

Multiculturalism starts to come under scrutiny in Australia in the 1990s with the rise of Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party.

Although Hanson ultimately failed to gather significant political support, her ideas were incorporated by the political mainstream. For example, John Howard refused to characterise her ideas as racist and said that opposition to Hanson was ‘political correctness’.

Hanson was opposed to Asian immigration and to Aboriginal recognition, specifically land rights and social welfare rights.

One Nation Party one a quarter of the vote in Queensland in 1998.

Shortly after, Hanson made a speech in which she said: ‘The Australian People [would] have thought twice about casting’ their vote to give Aboriginal people full citizenship rights.andMost people believe that ‘the pendulum has gone too far the other was and now there is so much discrimination, so much inequality in our society that it is causing resentment among all people.’

This is a staple of anti-MC rhetoric - granting recognition to dispossessed/marginalised people causes reverse racism (very common sentiment which ignores historical and contemporary inequality and injustice - the rhetoric itself participates in further marginalising/dispossessing the racialised).

As we shall see, although there was a lot of opposition to Hanson at the time, including from Howard as Prime Minister, many of her ideas are quite uncontroversial today.

In 2013, she said welcomed Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s pledge to put “Aussie workers first”, saying it vindicated the One Nation founder’s much-criticised warnings against foreign labour more than a decade ago.

Let’s look closer at the issue of Aboriginal land rights and multicultural policy...

In essence, those in the political mainstream were now saying what the Right had always said about multiculturalism - that it would lead to a dilution of Australian culture and values and to freedom of speech being suppressed. From the mid 1990s on, in Australia as well as in the UK and North America, politicians were no longer committed to multiculturalism as an - albeit imperfect - way of engineering social justice. Now, it was about what Hanson called ‘reverse racism’, or minorities dictating to what were portrayed as ‘ordinary Australians’ sick of having their culture undermined.

In a sense, the stereotypes associated with multiculturalism helped to undermine it. Because the focus in practice was actually much less on creating equality and, arguably, too much on promoting superficial cultural diversity, it allowed those who opposed immigration and multiculturalism to write it off as ‘political correctness gone mad’.

The Rise of One Nation‘The pendulum has gone too far the other way and now there is so much discrimination, so much inequality in our society that it is causing resentment among all people.’

Pauline Hanson

Tuesday, 9 April 13Australia

Multiculturalism starts to come under scrutiny in Australia in the 1990s with the rise of Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party.

Although Hanson ultimately failed to gather significant political support, her ideas were incorporated by the political mainstream. For example, John Howard refused to characterise her ideas as racist and said that opposition to Hanson was ‘political correctness’.

Hanson was opposed to Asian immigration and to Aboriginal recognition, specifically land rights and social welfare rights.

One Nation Party one a quarter of the vote in Queensland in 1998.

Shortly after, Hanson made a speech in which she said: ‘The Australian People [would] have thought twice about casting’ their vote to give Aboriginal people full citizenship rights.andMost people believe that ‘the pendulum has gone too far the other was and now there is so much discrimination, so much inequality in our society that it is causing resentment among all people.’

This is a staple of anti-MC rhetoric - granting recognition to dispossessed/marginalised people causes reverse racism (very common sentiment which ignores historical and contemporary inequality and injustice - the rhetoric itself participates in further marginalising/dispossessing the racialised).

As we shall see, although there was a lot of opposition to Hanson at the time, including from Howard as Prime Minister, many of her ideas are quite uncontroversial today.

In 2013, she said welcomed Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s pledge to put “Aussie workers first”, saying it vindicated the One Nation founder’s much-criticised warnings against foreign labour more than a decade ago.

Let’s look closer at the issue of Aboriginal land rights and multicultural policy...

In essence, those in the political mainstream were now saying what the Right had always said about multiculturalism - that it would lead to a dilution of Australian culture and values and to freedom of speech being suppressed. From the mid 1990s on, in Australia as well as in the UK and North America, politicians were no longer committed to multiculturalism as an - albeit imperfect - way of engineering social justice. Now, it was about what Hanson called ‘reverse racism’, or minorities dictating to what were portrayed as ‘ordinary Australians’ sick of having their culture undermined.

In a sense, the stereotypes associated with multiculturalism helped to undermine it. Because the focus in practice was actually much less on creating equality and, arguably, too much on promoting superficial cultural diversity, it allowed those who opposed immigration and multiculturalism to write it off as ‘political correctness gone mad’.

The Insufficiency of recognition

Indigenous people and multiculturalism

Tuesday, 9 April 13Multicultural strategy also specifically addresses racism and the rights of Aboriginal and TSI people.

E. Povinelli: MC is first problematised in relation to Aboriginals and TSI because recognition, in their case, meant land rights and actual redressing of past injustices (different to recognition of migrants).

1967 referendum first gave indigenous people the right to vote, supported by 90.8% of the Australian people.

But the referendum had no meaning in practice until 1976 when federal parliament passed the Aboriginal Land Rights Act allowing Aboriginal groups to claim vacant Crown land in the NT (low non-indigenous population).

Early 1990s - extended native title to the whole of Australia.

1993 - federal Native Title Act passed - this brings home the economic costs of social justice and the ‘potential social costs of multiculturalism’ (Povinelli)

i.e. MC is no longer about feel good ideas, now about actual redressing of injustice which requires the use of tax dollars!

Hanson’s ideas begin to become more mainstream -

Aboriginals were portrayed in newspapers as greedy, and ‘bleeding tax payers dry’.

Doubts were cast on people’s Aboriginality. So, urban Aboriginals or those not seen as culturally authentic enough were doubted. They were called ‘yellow fellas’ - people had to prove their status as ‘real blacks’ (plays into ideas about reified culture - in Anthias and Y-D’s critique).

1998: Liberal party feared that the election would be played out over race issues, so amended the Native Title Act restricting native title on pastoral lands and seas.

The Aboriginal Affairs minister, John Herron, attacked the Aboriginal and TSI commission for gross misuse of funds.

Povinelli: monoculturalism quickly replaces MC as the vision for the nation.

Howard: Australia should be allowed to defend its ‘unique tradition’ and identity (although this remained undefined) from Asian or Aboriginal incursion.

Analysis:

Povinelli: MC dictates that groups of people can be identified as having a distinct culture, set of traditions. So Aboriginal and TSI people are placed on the same level as another ‘minority’ group, e.g. Lebanese, Indonesian, Jews... with whites as the cultural standard.

But A and TSI people are ‘scarred by temporal and social differences’ - these scars refer to the difference between the actual indigenous person and indigenous identity/tradition - e.g. what we imagine someone fully embodying their culture would look like.

Povinelli: No Aboriginal person today can be as Aboriginal people once were - they cannot be in the geographical and social space of Aboriginality because that has been wiped out.

Aboriginal people also cannot live their identity without relating it to their current existence within the Australian N-S.

This produces feelings of ambiguity among the rest of the population and questions such as is an urban or a mixed race Aboriginal person really Aboriginal and, then, should they have the same rights (e.g. land rights) as ‘real’ Aboriginals?

‘Real’ Aboriginals are seen as people who practice the culture, speak the language, etc.

MC Australia is enthralled with people who seem more ancient (e.g. in the picture above). Corporate Australia uses Aboriginal culture and art to carve out a unique identity (between European and Aboriginal). Only in late 1990s was it considered that Aboriginal should reap economic benefits of use of their art in commercials, films, etc.

Povinelli argues that most Australians know nothing about indigenous traditions. They do not know the contents of the Native Title legislation:

[Click to reveal quote] 1976 Native Title Act defines aboriginal traditions as ‘the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals or of a community or group of Aboriginals, and includes those traditions, observances, customs, and beliefs as applied in relation to particular persons, sites, areas of land, things or relationships.’

To be successful in a land claim act, people have to provide evidence of the ‘degree of attachment’ to ancient lands and traditions. They also have to prove that they continue to practice Aboriginal customs, but these customs are undefined by the law.

It is hence very difficult to be successful.

Povinelli argues that what the focus on authentic culture ignores is the social conditions that most A and TSI people live in. By focusing on being able to prove that you embody the ancient traditions the law ignores that the reason why Aboriginal and TSI people deserve recognition is because of the injustice against them.

Povinelli argues that the Australian public wants to celebrate and recognise Aboriginal culture and law, which they respect for being the most ancient in the world, but they do not equate this culture and law with actual Aboriginal people who they see as not perfectly embodying these traditions.

Essentially, the traditions have become disconnected from the people who they are supposed to come from. MC policy focuses on respecting culture and customs, but not actual human beings.

Povinelli asks whether well-meaning MC policy with regards Aboriginals has the effect of making Aboriginal people see the ‘failure of cultural identity as their own personal failure’. If some Aboriginals were able to resist and preserve their culture, why weren’t the others able to do so? This casts aspersions on the degree to which Aboriginals could have been said to have suffered a genocide.

How does this problem at the hart of MC - specific to Australia - connect with the wider critique of MC in general?

The Insufficiency of recognition

‘the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals or of a community or group of Aboriginals, and includes those traditions, observances, customs, and beliefs as applied in relation to particular persons, sites, areas of land, things or relationships.’

Native Title Act (NT) 1976

Tuesday, 9 April 13Multicultural strategy also specifically addresses racism and the rights of Aboriginal and TSI people.

E. Povinelli: MC is first problematised in relation to Aboriginals and TSI because recognition, in their case, meant land rights and actual redressing of past injustices (different to recognition of migrants).

1967 referendum first gave indigenous people the right to vote, supported by 90.8% of the Australian people.

But the referendum had no meaning in practice until 1976 when federal parliament passed the Aboriginal Land Rights Act allowing Aboriginal groups to claim vacant Crown land in the NT (low non-indigenous population).

Early 1990s - extended native title to the whole of Australia.

1993 - federal Native Title Act passed - this brings home the economic costs of social justice and the ‘potential social costs of multiculturalism’ (Povinelli)

i.e. MC is no longer about feel good ideas, now about actual redressing of injustice which requires the use of tax dollars!

Hanson’s ideas begin to become more mainstream -

Aboriginals were portrayed in newspapers as greedy, and ‘bleeding tax payers dry’.

Doubts were cast on people’s Aboriginality. So, urban Aboriginals or those not seen as culturally authentic enough were doubted. They were called ‘yellow fellas’ - people had to prove their status as ‘real blacks’ (plays into ideas about reified culture - in Anthias and Y-D’s critique).

1998: Liberal party feared that the election would be played out over race issues, so amended the Native Title Act restricting native title on pastoral lands and seas.

The Aboriginal Affairs minister, John Herron, attacked the Aboriginal and TSI commission for gross misuse of funds.

Povinelli: monoculturalism quickly replaces MC as the vision for the nation.

Howard: Australia should be allowed to defend its ‘unique tradition’ and identity (although this remained undefined) from Asian or Aboriginal incursion.

Analysis:

Povinelli: MC dictates that groups of people can be identified as having a distinct culture, set of traditions. So Aboriginal and TSI people are placed on the same level as another ‘minority’ group, e.g. Lebanese, Indonesian, Jews... with whites as the cultural standard.

But A and TSI people are ‘scarred by temporal and social differences’ - these scars refer to the difference between the actual indigenous person and indigenous identity/tradition - e.g. what we imagine someone fully embodying their culture would look like.

Povinelli: No Aboriginal person today can be as Aboriginal people once were - they cannot be in the geographical and social space of Aboriginality because that has been wiped out.

Aboriginal people also cannot live their identity without relating it to their current existence within the Australian N-S.

This produces feelings of ambiguity among the rest of the population and questions such as is an urban or a mixed race Aboriginal person really Aboriginal and, then, should they have the same rights (e.g. land rights) as ‘real’ Aboriginals?

‘Real’ Aboriginals are seen as people who practice the culture, speak the language, etc.

MC Australia is enthralled with people who seem more ancient (e.g. in the picture above). Corporate Australia uses Aboriginal culture and art to carve out a unique identity (between European and Aboriginal). Only in late 1990s was it considered that Aboriginal should reap economic benefits of use of their art in commercials, films, etc.

Povinelli argues that most Australians know nothing about indigenous traditions. They do not know the contents of the Native Title legislation:

[Click to reveal quote] 1976 Native Title Act defines aboriginal traditions as ‘the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals or of a community or group of Aboriginals, and includes those traditions, observances, customs, and beliefs as applied in relation to particular persons, sites, areas of land, things or relationships.’

To be successful in a land claim act, people have to provide evidence of the ‘degree of attachment’ to ancient lands and traditions. They also have to prove that they continue to practice Aboriginal customs, but these customs are undefined by the law.

It is hence very difficult to be successful.

Povinelli argues that what the focus on authentic culture ignores is the social conditions that most A and TSI people live in. By focusing on being able to prove that you embody the ancient traditions the law ignores that the reason why Aboriginal and TSI people deserve recognition is because of the injustice against them.

Povinelli argues that the Australian public wants to celebrate and recognise Aboriginal culture and law, which they respect for being the most ancient in the world, but they do not equate this culture and law with actual Aboriginal people who they see as not perfectly embodying these traditions.

Essentially, the traditions have become disconnected from the people who they are supposed to come from. MC policy focuses on respecting culture and customs, but not actual human beings.

Povinelli asks whether well-meaning MC policy with regards Aboriginals has the effect of making Aboriginal people see the ‘failure of cultural identity as their own personal failure’. If some Aboriginals were able to resist and preserve their culture, why weren’t the others able to do so? This casts aspersions on the degree to which Aboriginals could have been said to have suffered a genocide.

How does this problem at the hart of MC - specific to Australia - connect with the wider critique of MC in general?

Tuesday, 9 April 13Pauline Hanson’s objections to MC have become mainstream in the post-2001 era (‘terrorism’ and asylum seekers as main targets - to be dealt with in detail in weeks 11 and 12)

[Short intro to the book]

In ‘The Crises’, we argue that the attack on multiculturalism should not be seen as separate from racism. We argue that opposition to multiculturalism is the main way in which racism is expressed today.

Because it has become unacceptable to be openly racist, discrimination against people who are racialised - those of non-European migrant background, people of colour and indigenous people - is expressed through the language of anti-multiculturalism.

As you can see from this quote [REVEAL], criticising other people’s culture has become acceptable while objecting to people on racial grounds is beyond the pale. However, as we discussed last week, racism has always used both biology or physical appearance and culture to make its claims. Whether you object to someone because of their ‘genes’ or their ‘culture’ is irrelevant to the person who is being attacked. The effects of what W.E.B. Du Bois called the ‘discrimination and insult’ are the same.

Objection to multiculturalism generally stresses the importance of preserving the national ‘way of life’ over those of competing groups, seen as alien to national culture. Yet, this point of view assumes that there is something fundamental that divides countries like Australia or those in Europe from the rest of the world.

Political leaders who make speeches on the subject usually stress ‘tolerance, democracy and respect for the rule of law’ as being national values. However, these are certainly not the sole preserve of western states. Pauline Hanson was a lot more clear when she said in 2001 that those who, as she put it, have ‘a lack of respect for Australian culture... have no respect for the Christian way of life that this country’s based on.’

In other words, Hanson was openly opposing one particular culture - Christian culture - to other competing cultural forms. However, given that multiculturalism has been central to Australian life and that increasing numbers of Australians do NOT originate from white, Anglo, Christian culture, the opposition to multiculturalism creates divisions between different groups of citizens, some of whom are seen as worthier than others.

Anti-multiculturalism essentially sends the message that we were wrong to open up to other cultures; that Australia IS and should always be a white, Christian country in which others might be tolerated but only if they play by our rules.

‘Nas @43 where have I mentioned the word ‘genetics’ or the word ‘race’? My problem is with Somali culture not Somali genes.’

CAULDRON — ON 21ST AUGUST, 2009 AT 11:41

AM WWW.PICKLEDPOLITICS.COM

Tuesday, 9 April 13Pauline Hanson’s objections to MC have become mainstream in the post-2001 era (‘terrorism’ and asylum seekers as main targets - to be dealt with in detail in weeks 11 and 12)

[Short intro to the book]

In ‘The Crises’, we argue that the attack on multiculturalism should not be seen as separate from racism. We argue that opposition to multiculturalism is the main way in which racism is expressed today.

Because it has become unacceptable to be openly racist, discrimination against people who are racialised - those of non-European migrant background, people of colour and indigenous people - is expressed through the language of anti-multiculturalism.

As you can see from this quote [REVEAL], criticising other people’s culture has become acceptable while objecting to people on racial grounds is beyond the pale. However, as we discussed last week, racism has always used both biology or physical appearance and culture to make its claims. Whether you object to someone because of their ‘genes’ or their ‘culture’ is irrelevant to the person who is being attacked. The effects of what W.E.B. Du Bois called the ‘discrimination and insult’ are the same.

Objection to multiculturalism generally stresses the importance of preserving the national ‘way of life’ over those of competing groups, seen as alien to national culture. Yet, this point of view assumes that there is something fundamental that divides countries like Australia or those in Europe from the rest of the world.

Political leaders who make speeches on the subject usually stress ‘tolerance, democracy and respect for the rule of law’ as being national values. However, these are certainly not the sole preserve of western states. Pauline Hanson was a lot more clear when she said in 2001 that those who, as she put it, have ‘a lack of respect for Australian culture... have no respect for the Christian way of life that this country’s based on.’

In other words, Hanson was openly opposing one particular culture - Christian culture - to other competing cultural forms. However, given that multiculturalism has been central to Australian life and that increasing numbers of Australians do NOT originate from white, Anglo, Christian culture, the opposition to multiculturalism creates divisions between different groups of citizens, some of whom are seen as worthier than others.

Anti-multiculturalism essentially sends the message that we were wrong to open up to other cultures; that Australia IS and should always be a white, Christian country in which others might be tolerated but only if they play by our rules.

Recreating whitenesses

Tuesday, 9 April 13In Week 12, we will look at how Islam and Muslims have become a major theme in the crisis of multiculturalism discourse.

Here, let’s look at how contemporary migration politics, since Howard, are contributing to the shift away from MC towards monoculturalism.

Jon Stratton: the role of the 457 visa (topical in light of Gillard’s recent remarks).

457 visa introduced under Howard in 1996.

An employer-driven visa for skilled workers. If you lose your job, you can lose your visa. There is a route to permanent residency, but consistent employment is necessary.

A perfect situation - the visa-holder costs the state almost nothing, is the full responsibility of the employer and leaves if s/he loses his/her job.

These visa-holders don’t even participate in MC Australia - they are seen as transitory.

Furthermore, the make-up of the 457 visa holders in racialised. The 457 can be seen as a means of responding to the crisis of MC.

The biggest proportion of 457 visa holders are British - e.g. employers still prefer to employ British over any other group. This increases the white, Anglo proportion of the population and, specifically, British cultural heritage.

Other white countries with Britain made up in total 49.9% of 457 visa holders in 2006. These are seen as having shared values and similar cultures whereas non-white countries are seen as being very different to each other.

The argument from the anti-MC perspetive is that these cultural groups are incompatible with both Australian (white) culture, but also with each other - leading to cultural clash.

[Click to reveal quote]Stratton: ‘The introduction of the 457 Visa has had the unexpected consequence of reinforcing the white Australian middle class, and its hegemonic Anglo-Celtic Australian culture, at the same time the Howard government moved Australia away from multiculturalism and towards a renewed emphasis on ‘Australian values’ and the Australian way of life - which, in reality, meant white, Anglo-Celtic Australian culture.’

Honorary whiteness:

Stratton notes that the two second biggest groups of 457 migrants are Indian and Chinese.

Most members of ‘ethnic minority groups’ in Australia are working class, with Anglos traditionally making up the middle class professionals.

So, what does the arrival of significant numbers of non-white professionals (Indians and Chinese mainly) mean for Australian MC? These people are being catapulted into a middle class from which, tradtionally, non-whites and non-Anglos have been excluded.

Stratton: these Asian migrants are considered ‘honorary whites’ which ‘acknowledge their difference while preserving the integrity of white, Anglo-Australian hegemony.’

However, honorary whiteness status can be withdrawn if the individual is seen as not complying with the behaviour expected.

Stratton describes the experiences of Indian students who have the opportunity to stay and get work after studying in Australia which is a route to permanent residency.

However, due to the fact that Anglos are favoured in employment, many qualified Indians with degrees from Australian universities find themselves doing unskilled labour (e.g. taxi drivers). They thus fall short of the expectations that white Australians have for them by not entering the middle class, and lose their status of honorary whites.

MC Australia relies on the existence of a core white Australian identity.

Skilled migrants are asked to sign up to this and become honorary whites - leaving behind their own culture.

Australian identity under MC is carved out in opposition to minority groups who serve as a counter-point to Australianness.

So, MC caters for difference, rather than being a vision to which everyone can subscribe.

This becomes particularly problematic for migrants who want to integrate into the Australian middle class while having their own identity recognised and valued under Australian MC.

It also creates problems for Aboriginal and TSI people who are forced into a MC model within which they are another minority cultural group to be recognised, rather than the original inhabitants of the land.

MC - rather than being something that non-whites want, can be seen as a tool of the Racial State.

‘The introduction of the 457 Visa has had the unexpected consequence of reinforcing the white Australian middle class, and its hegemonic Anglo-Celtic Australian culture, at the same time the Howard government moved Australia away from multiculturalism and towards a renewed emphasis on ‘Australian values’ and the Australian way of life - which, in reality, meant white, Anglo-Celtic Australian culture.’

Jon Stratton 2009

Recreating whitenesses

Tuesday, 9 April 13In Week 12, we will look at how Islam and Muslims have become a major theme in the crisis of multiculturalism discourse.

Here, let’s look at how contemporary migration politics, since Howard, are contributing to the shift away from MC towards monoculturalism.

Jon Stratton: the role of the 457 visa (topical in light of Gillard’s recent remarks).

457 visa introduced under Howard in 1996.

An employer-driven visa for skilled workers. If you lose your job, you can lose your visa. There is a route to permanent residency, but consistent employment is necessary.

A perfect situation - the visa-holder costs the state almost nothing, is the full responsibility of the employer and leaves if s/he loses his/her job.

These visa-holders don’t even participate in MC Australia - they are seen as transitory.

Furthermore, the make-up of the 457 visa holders in racialised. The 457 can be seen as a means of responding to the crisis of MC.

The biggest proportion of 457 visa holders are British - e.g. employers still prefer to employ British over any other group. This increases the white, Anglo proportion of the population and, specifically, British cultural heritage.

Other white countries with Britain made up in total 49.9% of 457 visa holders in 2006. These are seen as having shared values and similar cultures whereas non-white countries are seen as being very different to each other.

The argument from the anti-MC perspetive is that these cultural groups are incompatible with both Australian (white) culture, but also with each other - leading to cultural clash.

[Click to reveal quote]Stratton: ‘The introduction of the 457 Visa has had the unexpected consequence of reinforcing the white Australian middle class, and its hegemonic Anglo-Celtic Australian culture, at the same time the Howard government moved Australia away from multiculturalism and towards a renewed emphasis on ‘Australian values’ and the Australian way of life - which, in reality, meant white, Anglo-Celtic Australian culture.’

Honorary whiteness:

Stratton notes that the two second biggest groups of 457 migrants are Indian and Chinese.

Most members of ‘ethnic minority groups’ in Australia are working class, with Anglos traditionally making up the middle class professionals.

So, what does the arrival of significant numbers of non-white professionals (Indians and Chinese mainly) mean for Australian MC? These people are being catapulted into a middle class from which, tradtionally, non-whites and non-Anglos have been excluded.

Stratton: these Asian migrants are considered ‘honorary whites’ which ‘acknowledge their difference while preserving the integrity of white, Anglo-Australian hegemony.’

However, honorary whiteness status can be withdrawn if the individual is seen as not complying with the behaviour expected.

Stratton describes the experiences of Indian students who have the opportunity to stay and get work after studying in Australia which is a route to permanent residency.

However, due to the fact that Anglos are favoured in employment, many qualified Indians with degrees from Australian universities find themselves doing unskilled labour (e.g. taxi drivers). They thus fall short of the expectations that white Australians have for them by not entering the middle class, and lose their status of honorary whites.

MC Australia relies on the existence of a core white Australian identity.

Skilled migrants are asked to sign up to this and become honorary whites - leaving behind their own culture.

Australian identity under MC is carved out in opposition to minority groups who serve as a counter-point to Australianness.

So, MC caters for difference, rather than being a vision to which everyone can subscribe.

This becomes particularly problematic for migrants who want to integrate into the Australian middle class while having their own identity recognised and valued under Australian MC.

It also creates problems for Aboriginal and TSI people who are forced into a MC model within which they are another minority cultural group to be recognised, rather than the original inhabitants of the land.

MC - rather than being something that non-whites want, can be seen as a tool of the Racial State.

Tutorial Questions

What are the main differences between assimilation and multiculturalism?

Why is recognition important to multiculturalism? Who recognises who?

Why might Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people feel left out of multiculturalism?

What do you think is the future for multiculturalism in Australia?

Tuesday, 9 April 13