- 08 Aug 2005 05:11
#693656
I wrote this for Australian history. I recieved 22.5/25 for it.
Nation, Race and Citizen 1888-1914:
Parliamentary Acts in terms of a ‘White Australia’.
---------
"We are just on the eve of our national life, and it behoves us at the very beginning to decide who are going to be citizens of the Commonwealth. It is not a matter that we have to decide for ourselves only. We have got to decide it for posterity, and it is right that we should decide definitely that Australia shall be for those of European extraction."
- L.E Groom, Queensland MP, 1901
----------
The notion of a ‘White Australia’ had been prevalent upon the Australian continent from the days of the Gold Rushes in the early 1850s and had overtime, evolved and advanced to culminate in the passing of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, the Naturalization Act of 1903 and finally the Pacific Islands Labourers’ Act of 1904. These three acts of Parliamentary Legislation were the official conclusion to the wishes of the Australian people over the decades prior to becoming a nation-state, and solidified the vision that the nation would be “a white Australiaâ€.
‘White Australia’ was a policy that would secure the new nation’s identity, and was regarded unanimously across the nation as a policy of advancement in regards to this issue. So much so that by Federation it was a non-issue for debate. It was by this time a “sine qua non to election†and was at the forefront of all parties’ platforms. The development of the policy of White Australia had emerged many years before Federation and had been the main topic of agreement at the Intercolonial Conference of 1888 which came about after “agitation for further restrictive measures†from “all sections of the peopleâ€. There, the perceived threat of Chinese arrivals to the colonies of Australia eventuated in the passing of rules that would involve the restriction of Chinese Immigration. This first step of unified legislation was seen as “essential to the welfare of the Australian colonies†and helped protect the emerging nation from “a people who seemed to remain permanently alien.†The people of Australia, from labourers to newspaper editors to politicians had begun to finally ally themselves on a national level and the outcomes of the Conference had helped the people “throw off… more of the provincialism†that identified them with only their respective colonies. The Conference was the last step of legislative procedure from the colonies that restricted the movement of specifically the Chinese, but was the first step as a nation in the restriction of all Non-Europeans.
The people of Australia were fervent in their resolve to make sure the continent would be white, and that a future nation-state would remain so. They were adamant that the Anglo-Saxon race was superior to any other and British civilization “far in advance of any other†civilization on earth. Scientific theories of the time based on racialism supported these ideas, and it was noted even in text books. While the Anglo-Saxon race was regarded as the greatest, the Australians saw themselves as the greatest Anglo-Saxons, as Marcus Clarke wrote in 1877 of the future Australian being “tall, coarse, strong jawed, greedy [and a] punishing man.†In regards to Parliamentary legislature, in 1888 Henry Parkes reinforced these ideas in debate of the Chinese Restriction Bill, saying that if Australia “is to maintain its liberties, it cannot admit into its population any element of an inferior nature.†This identification of the Anglo-Saxon race as superior through racialism stemmed to racist views among the population of Australia, such as those of William Lane, a Utopian Socialist in 1892, who would rather have seen his daughter “dead in her coffin than… nursing a coffee coloured brat that she was mother to.†Australians believed purity of race was a necessity in any future Australia, and the admixture of other races into the social fold would not have just been problematic but disastrous to the realization of a national identity. The national identity of Australians was that of a ‘new stock’ of British people. Such conceptions were supported through the media, such as The Bulletin with its enterprising legends of the bushman.
The views of the people of Australia were not just represented by colonial Parliaments and the media. The people themselves started to band together in their social and work related institutions, and many allied to halt ‘Asiatics’ who were seen as “aliens of inferior mental and physical capacityâ€. Workers united in the form of the Labor Movement that would become the Australian Labor Party and at the then time, various colonial Trades and Labour Councils that actually “resented all immigration on economic grounds.†Europeans were tolerated by such groups as they “were capable of sympathy with [the workers’] aspirationsâ€, but it was seen that Non-Europeans had no place in Australian society. Chinese immigrants would conflict with Australian workers for jobs, and as they generally worked for less pay, employment was seen to be taken from Australian workers. Globally, Australia was seen as a “working man’s paradise†and union institutions wanted to maintain this ideal. This included the development of the 8 hour working day and the introduction of minimum wages. Other groups, such as the Anti-Chinese and Asiatic League of the Commonwealth, had upwards of 20,000 members and its three pillars of policy were the “total prohibition of Asiatic Immigration, the segregation of Asiatics in Australia already and stricter enforcement of industrial laws which Chinese immigrants evaded†. Another prominent group, The Australian Natives Association developed their own newspaper, Advance Australia, which maintained their support for an Anglo-Saxon nation.
By 1888, common Australian policy towards Non-European immigration had been developed, and during the 1890’s, much debate on the matter did not occur, until the final pushes of Federation. There was no debate on the essence legislation that would ensue, but rather on the methods of which such legislation would run. The Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 decried that all applicants of entry to Australia who when asked, failed “to write out at dictation and sign… a passage of fifty words… in a European language†be prohibited from entering the country. This ‘Natal method’ of undertaking policy was opposed by those within Australia who saw the idea of a test of this kind as “crooked and indirect†and Members of Parliament such as William Macmillan wished for the policy to be maintained “straight forwardly and honestlyâ€. However, a method of simply barring immigration applicants on racial grounds conflicted with Britain’s policy of “equality before the law of all members of the British Empireâ€. Due to British interests in the Asian region, especially with Japan, Deakin believed that Britain’s “reasonable request†had to be taken into account when devising the Act. Even though there was opposition to the Natal Method with suspicion of it’s effectiveness, loopholes in the rules of it’s use allowed for the Australian Government to still bar those of Non-European descent simply on racial grounds. Instructions given to customs officers were extremely confidential and for good reason as many would have been deemed to be “blatantly and arbitrarily discriminatory.†The passages selected for the dictation test were to be chosen by the Secretary of the Department of External Affairs and changed every two weeks to prevent evasion “by means of rote learning.â€
After the passing of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, foreign views of Australia began to change. Articles in the London Times and New York Times prescribed Australia, once the “working man’s paradise†with the title of the “a centre of human barbarismâ€. Japan was also appalled at the Restriction Act. While the Japanese “distinctly recognised†the right of the Government of Australia to control its immigration, as they restricted immigration themselves, they viewed their own nation “whose standard of civilization [was] so much higher†than other Asian nations as rightful to be excluded from the Act. The fact that the British recognised this in regards to Japan, even so far as treating them as a diplomatic partner when concerned with the threat of Russian expansion in the Far East strengthened their argument to be excluded from restrictions. In an effort to place Japan on equal footing with Europeans, the Act was amended in 1905 when “50 words in a European language†was changed to “50 words in any prescribed language†in regards to the dictation test as part of the Natal method of restriction. The use of the dictation test did not occur as widely as would be expected, however. It was partly more a deterrent to those of the “coolie classes†than anything else, but also a safe-guard incase they did attempt to acquire entry to the country. The characteristics of the test, as it was difficult and ever changing, helped the Australian Government as the number of applicants dropped as the nature of the test became known. Its difficulty was proved when in 1903, 153 applicants applied and only 13 passed.
As Australia was coming of age, the realization of retirees in the nation arose. Those of Non-European descent who had been born in Australia were able to claim the pension, however Non-European Immigrants were not. In an attempt to help such restrictions within the country, the Naturalization Act of 1903 was passed. This disallowed any Non-European Immigrant to become naturalized and claim citizenship. The Naturalization Act itself was important, but has been largely ignored throughout history compared to the actual Immigration Restriction Act of 1901. However, the Naturalization Act refused the same rights of citizens of Australia to those of Non-European immigrants who had already arrived in Australia prior to the Restriction Act, in accordance with the vision of a ‘White Australia.’ Non-Europeans, especially ‘Asiatics’ could not be admitted entirely into Australian society as it was viewed that the Anglo-Saxon had to be “preserved in his pure state if he was to retain position as the best and strongest†race on earth. To allow ‘Asiatics’ to become naturalized would heighten the threat of intermarriage, which The Bulletin warned of fiercely, saying that “Anglo-Saxons could not intermarry with N***** without lowering the type.†Strong anti-Asian feelings were still prevalent after the introduction of acts to restrict their influx to Australia as well as their rights while in the country, but one group of Non-Europeans still remained that had been excluded from previous legislative acts.
The South Pacific Islanders, commonly known as Kanakas were employed in Queensland in the sugar-cane industry and were basic slaves to the aristocratic plantation owners nicknamed blackbirders. Not only did the Kanakas not fit with the vision of a White Australia on racial grounds, but for a long time, unions had opposed their use as it lowered the living standards of workers in Australia. They were viewed just like any other Non-European by the majority of Australians; Jim Page, Labor Party member describing them as part of the “plague of leprosy†which threatened Australia. Plantation owners argued that they needed the Kanakas as white men would not possibly do the job they did, and on racial grounds put forward their argument to maintain the status quo. However, in realization of their inability to coincide with the ‘White Australia’ vision, the Pacific Islands Labourers’ Act was introduced in 1904. It “aimed at ending the use of coloured people in the sugar industry†and Kanakas were banned from entering Australia after March 31, 1904. Any remaining after December 31, 1906 would be deported as per the guidelines of the Act, and this gradual removal of the Kanakas from Queensland’s plantations was seen to both support the policy of a ‘White Australia’ but also make sure that the Queensland economy did not crash, as it relied on the sugarcane industry to survive economically. This Act of 1904 would be the final Act on Australia’s journey to a completely ‘White Australia’.
The Parliamentary Acts that played their role in the vision of a ‘White Australia’ were very much representative of the common held views of the entire society at the time, from labourers to newspaper editors to politicians themselves. It would be a mistake to believe that the Acts themselves dictated policy to the people, as the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, the Naturalization Act of 1903 and the Pacific Islands Labourers’ Act of 1904 were indeed the conclusive answers to the wishes of the Australian populace in the second half the 19th century. The acts put to paper the prevalent desire of Australians “to be one people, a united race inspired by the same ideas†and would solidify the national identity of Australia as a racially exclusive nation for at least the next 50 years into the future.
Copyright Alex Drummond 2005
No part of this document may be used without reference.
(All my footnotes didn't show up. Nevermind.)
Drummond
Nation, Race and Citizen 1888-1914:
Parliamentary Acts in terms of a ‘White Australia’.
---------
"We are just on the eve of our national life, and it behoves us at the very beginning to decide who are going to be citizens of the Commonwealth. It is not a matter that we have to decide for ourselves only. We have got to decide it for posterity, and it is right that we should decide definitely that Australia shall be for those of European extraction."
- L.E Groom, Queensland MP, 1901
----------
The notion of a ‘White Australia’ had been prevalent upon the Australian continent from the days of the Gold Rushes in the early 1850s and had overtime, evolved and advanced to culminate in the passing of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, the Naturalization Act of 1903 and finally the Pacific Islands Labourers’ Act of 1904. These three acts of Parliamentary Legislation were the official conclusion to the wishes of the Australian people over the decades prior to becoming a nation-state, and solidified the vision that the nation would be “a white Australiaâ€.
‘White Australia’ was a policy that would secure the new nation’s identity, and was regarded unanimously across the nation as a policy of advancement in regards to this issue. So much so that by Federation it was a non-issue for debate. It was by this time a “sine qua non to election†and was at the forefront of all parties’ platforms. The development of the policy of White Australia had emerged many years before Federation and had been the main topic of agreement at the Intercolonial Conference of 1888 which came about after “agitation for further restrictive measures†from “all sections of the peopleâ€. There, the perceived threat of Chinese arrivals to the colonies of Australia eventuated in the passing of rules that would involve the restriction of Chinese Immigration. This first step of unified legislation was seen as “essential to the welfare of the Australian colonies†and helped protect the emerging nation from “a people who seemed to remain permanently alien.†The people of Australia, from labourers to newspaper editors to politicians had begun to finally ally themselves on a national level and the outcomes of the Conference had helped the people “throw off… more of the provincialism†that identified them with only their respective colonies. The Conference was the last step of legislative procedure from the colonies that restricted the movement of specifically the Chinese, but was the first step as a nation in the restriction of all Non-Europeans.
The people of Australia were fervent in their resolve to make sure the continent would be white, and that a future nation-state would remain so. They were adamant that the Anglo-Saxon race was superior to any other and British civilization “far in advance of any other†civilization on earth. Scientific theories of the time based on racialism supported these ideas, and it was noted even in text books. While the Anglo-Saxon race was regarded as the greatest, the Australians saw themselves as the greatest Anglo-Saxons, as Marcus Clarke wrote in 1877 of the future Australian being “tall, coarse, strong jawed, greedy [and a] punishing man.†In regards to Parliamentary legislature, in 1888 Henry Parkes reinforced these ideas in debate of the Chinese Restriction Bill, saying that if Australia “is to maintain its liberties, it cannot admit into its population any element of an inferior nature.†This identification of the Anglo-Saxon race as superior through racialism stemmed to racist views among the population of Australia, such as those of William Lane, a Utopian Socialist in 1892, who would rather have seen his daughter “dead in her coffin than… nursing a coffee coloured brat that she was mother to.†Australians believed purity of race was a necessity in any future Australia, and the admixture of other races into the social fold would not have just been problematic but disastrous to the realization of a national identity. The national identity of Australians was that of a ‘new stock’ of British people. Such conceptions were supported through the media, such as The Bulletin with its enterprising legends of the bushman.
The views of the people of Australia were not just represented by colonial Parliaments and the media. The people themselves started to band together in their social and work related institutions, and many allied to halt ‘Asiatics’ who were seen as “aliens of inferior mental and physical capacityâ€. Workers united in the form of the Labor Movement that would become the Australian Labor Party and at the then time, various colonial Trades and Labour Councils that actually “resented all immigration on economic grounds.†Europeans were tolerated by such groups as they “were capable of sympathy with [the workers’] aspirationsâ€, but it was seen that Non-Europeans had no place in Australian society. Chinese immigrants would conflict with Australian workers for jobs, and as they generally worked for less pay, employment was seen to be taken from Australian workers. Globally, Australia was seen as a “working man’s paradise†and union institutions wanted to maintain this ideal. This included the development of the 8 hour working day and the introduction of minimum wages. Other groups, such as the Anti-Chinese and Asiatic League of the Commonwealth, had upwards of 20,000 members and its three pillars of policy were the “total prohibition of Asiatic Immigration, the segregation of Asiatics in Australia already and stricter enforcement of industrial laws which Chinese immigrants evaded†. Another prominent group, The Australian Natives Association developed their own newspaper, Advance Australia, which maintained their support for an Anglo-Saxon nation.
By 1888, common Australian policy towards Non-European immigration had been developed, and during the 1890’s, much debate on the matter did not occur, until the final pushes of Federation. There was no debate on the essence legislation that would ensue, but rather on the methods of which such legislation would run. The Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 decried that all applicants of entry to Australia who when asked, failed “to write out at dictation and sign… a passage of fifty words… in a European language†be prohibited from entering the country. This ‘Natal method’ of undertaking policy was opposed by those within Australia who saw the idea of a test of this kind as “crooked and indirect†and Members of Parliament such as William Macmillan wished for the policy to be maintained “straight forwardly and honestlyâ€. However, a method of simply barring immigration applicants on racial grounds conflicted with Britain’s policy of “equality before the law of all members of the British Empireâ€. Due to British interests in the Asian region, especially with Japan, Deakin believed that Britain’s “reasonable request†had to be taken into account when devising the Act. Even though there was opposition to the Natal Method with suspicion of it’s effectiveness, loopholes in the rules of it’s use allowed for the Australian Government to still bar those of Non-European descent simply on racial grounds. Instructions given to customs officers were extremely confidential and for good reason as many would have been deemed to be “blatantly and arbitrarily discriminatory.†The passages selected for the dictation test were to be chosen by the Secretary of the Department of External Affairs and changed every two weeks to prevent evasion “by means of rote learning.â€
After the passing of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, foreign views of Australia began to change. Articles in the London Times and New York Times prescribed Australia, once the “working man’s paradise†with the title of the “a centre of human barbarismâ€. Japan was also appalled at the Restriction Act. While the Japanese “distinctly recognised†the right of the Government of Australia to control its immigration, as they restricted immigration themselves, they viewed their own nation “whose standard of civilization [was] so much higher†than other Asian nations as rightful to be excluded from the Act. The fact that the British recognised this in regards to Japan, even so far as treating them as a diplomatic partner when concerned with the threat of Russian expansion in the Far East strengthened their argument to be excluded from restrictions. In an effort to place Japan on equal footing with Europeans, the Act was amended in 1905 when “50 words in a European language†was changed to “50 words in any prescribed language†in regards to the dictation test as part of the Natal method of restriction. The use of the dictation test did not occur as widely as would be expected, however. It was partly more a deterrent to those of the “coolie classes†than anything else, but also a safe-guard incase they did attempt to acquire entry to the country. The characteristics of the test, as it was difficult and ever changing, helped the Australian Government as the number of applicants dropped as the nature of the test became known. Its difficulty was proved when in 1903, 153 applicants applied and only 13 passed.
As Australia was coming of age, the realization of retirees in the nation arose. Those of Non-European descent who had been born in Australia were able to claim the pension, however Non-European Immigrants were not. In an attempt to help such restrictions within the country, the Naturalization Act of 1903 was passed. This disallowed any Non-European Immigrant to become naturalized and claim citizenship. The Naturalization Act itself was important, but has been largely ignored throughout history compared to the actual Immigration Restriction Act of 1901. However, the Naturalization Act refused the same rights of citizens of Australia to those of Non-European immigrants who had already arrived in Australia prior to the Restriction Act, in accordance with the vision of a ‘White Australia.’ Non-Europeans, especially ‘Asiatics’ could not be admitted entirely into Australian society as it was viewed that the Anglo-Saxon had to be “preserved in his pure state if he was to retain position as the best and strongest†race on earth. To allow ‘Asiatics’ to become naturalized would heighten the threat of intermarriage, which The Bulletin warned of fiercely, saying that “Anglo-Saxons could not intermarry with N***** without lowering the type.†Strong anti-Asian feelings were still prevalent after the introduction of acts to restrict their influx to Australia as well as their rights while in the country, but one group of Non-Europeans still remained that had been excluded from previous legislative acts.
The South Pacific Islanders, commonly known as Kanakas were employed in Queensland in the sugar-cane industry and were basic slaves to the aristocratic plantation owners nicknamed blackbirders. Not only did the Kanakas not fit with the vision of a White Australia on racial grounds, but for a long time, unions had opposed their use as it lowered the living standards of workers in Australia. They were viewed just like any other Non-European by the majority of Australians; Jim Page, Labor Party member describing them as part of the “plague of leprosy†which threatened Australia. Plantation owners argued that they needed the Kanakas as white men would not possibly do the job they did, and on racial grounds put forward their argument to maintain the status quo. However, in realization of their inability to coincide with the ‘White Australia’ vision, the Pacific Islands Labourers’ Act was introduced in 1904. It “aimed at ending the use of coloured people in the sugar industry†and Kanakas were banned from entering Australia after March 31, 1904. Any remaining after December 31, 1906 would be deported as per the guidelines of the Act, and this gradual removal of the Kanakas from Queensland’s plantations was seen to both support the policy of a ‘White Australia’ but also make sure that the Queensland economy did not crash, as it relied on the sugarcane industry to survive economically. This Act of 1904 would be the final Act on Australia’s journey to a completely ‘White Australia’.
The Parliamentary Acts that played their role in the vision of a ‘White Australia’ were very much representative of the common held views of the entire society at the time, from labourers to newspaper editors to politicians themselves. It would be a mistake to believe that the Acts themselves dictated policy to the people, as the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, the Naturalization Act of 1903 and the Pacific Islands Labourers’ Act of 1904 were indeed the conclusive answers to the wishes of the Australian populace in the second half the 19th century. The acts put to paper the prevalent desire of Australians “to be one people, a united race inspired by the same ideas†and would solidify the national identity of Australia as a racially exclusive nation for at least the next 50 years into the future.
Copyright Alex Drummond 2005
No part of this document may be used without reference.
(All my footnotes didn't show up. Nevermind.)
Drummond
- By Rancid
- By Potemkin
- By wat0n