Shockadelic

If your aim is to deceive, you need to better understand the historical facts. I wonder whether you’re up to it when you comprehend so little.

You distort my statements to suit your purpose. e.g. I said: "True, the Act does not mention race" and went on to explain why the Government did not use the word ‘race’. It was politically awkward so they devised the dictation test.

“At last, he admits it!” you pounce - but deceitfully omit reference to the historically documented explanation and the rock-solid evidence I gave which shows clearly that the Government was motivated by racist beliefs.

You mischievously distort what I said about the choice of European languages. The pointed omission of non-European languages was a device to exclude non-whites.

You say I quote a book published in 1975 but you fail to understand that the ‘qu.’ in a reference shows that an original quotation is quoted in that text, and is not the 1975 author’s.

You pick up my reference to Pacific Island labourers being exempted and again you ignore the documented explanation that they were exempted because the Federal Government was dealing with them under different legislation. You then claim: “QUEENSLAND legislation (The Pacific Island Labourers Act, the Sugar Cultivation Act) only apply in that state, and federal law … overules state law.” But the two Acts were not Queensland Acts – they were Federal.

You claim that deportation of existing inhabitants was not part of the Act. You quote s3(n) - the residence clause. But s4 provided that such exemptions were temporary and could be cancelled at any time. And many were.

Your crude account of the historical relationship between races and cultures is drivel. You confirm your own logical contradiction, but you get further into the logical swamp: “I said they WERE synonyms…My point was that in 1901, if someone said "the white race" or "a white nation" they may mean what we today would call "European culture". The reverse must have been true too.

Do some reading, and critical thinking, before you tackle this topic again.

“Thanks for the link. Now everyone can see there is no mention of excluding people because of their race” – no mentioning of not-employing non-Anglos in Australia either, but “the Australian government does not provide a job on arrival in Australia” as the independent category visa/skilled migration application form explanations stated.

Practically, it might be understood as clearing themselves from a factual betrayal while luring overseas non-Anglo-professionals to this for-Anglos-only English colony, and recent influx of one-day-to-graduate-chefs-of-Punjabi-descend is the perfect example of irresponsibility and short vision the privileged to be employed in Australia mates-in this case immigration officials demonstrate once again.

s4 does not apply to s3(n) (residents, no mention of certificates), but it is actually referring to s3(h), people specifically noted as possessing a certificate of exemption.

You see biological race and only race in the Dictation Test, but it's "perfectly clear" European languages are linguistically related to English, the language of the British colonists, who had been migrating here for 113 years before federation.
A quite specific cultural reality existed here in 1901. Not surprisingly, some wanted to keep it that way.

Words can have multiple meanings or change meaning over time.
This is why quoting hundred-year old speeches can be misleading.

People wanted a "White Australia"? This is a convenient shorthand.
Try having a conversation repeatedly filled with the phrase "British/European/Judeo-Christian/Western Civilisation"!
"White" is just so much easier.

"White" culture and "white" race evolved together over millenia, disconnected from the other continents, where other races and cultures were evolving.

In 1901, a person's racial features were a pretty accurate match with their cultural background.
The EFFECT of this law restricted races, but that would also result if the INTENTION was to restrict CULTURAL BACKGROUND.

On a list of repealed QUEENSLAND legislation, there are two acts with identical titles to the Federal ones.
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Leg_Info/repealed_annotations/Tab1_RepAlpha_P.pdf
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Leg_Info/repealed_annotations/Tab1_RepAlpha_S.pdf

The Pacific Island Labourers Act of Queenland actually dates from 1880, 21 years BEFORE the Federal one!
As these matters concerned Queensland, I quite reasonably presumed you were referring to state law.

So far FrankGol has said I:
"deceitfully omit"
"fail to understand"
am "in denial"
"re-write history to suit my own wishes"
"incorrectly construe"
am "wrong"
"mischievously distort"
"destroy my own argument"
"aim to deceive"
"need to better understand the historical facts" but "wonders whether I'm up to it when I comprehend so little"
"distort his statements to suit my purpose"
"pounce" on the only admitted flaw in his argument
need to "do some reading, and critical thinking, before I tackle this topic again"
and that my "crude account of the historical relationship between races and cultures is drivel".

Ah, character assassination, the last refuge of the desperate failure.

A comprehensive list Shockadelic, you've done well - and it's worth repeating:

"deceitfully omit"
"fail to understand"
"in denial"
"re-write history to suit my own wishes"
"incorrectly construe"
"wrong"
"mischievously distort"
"destroy my own argument"
"aim to deceive"
"need to better understand the historical facts"
"wonders whether I'm up to it when I comprehend so little"
"distort his statements to suit my purpose"
"pounce" on the only admitted flaw in his argument
"do some reading, and critical thinking, before I tackle this topic again"
"crude account of the historical relationship between races and cultures is drivel".

Nothing to do with character assassination, though Shockadelic as you suggest, just an accurate summation of your approach and lack of knowledge.

Actually Shockadelic, there was a 'white Australia' policy. It was not seen by all migration officers as a way of 'screening' immigrants for 'cultural' compatibility if that was indeed the motive.

My family's experience with Australian visa applications in the early 70's from Europe is not unique. There should have been no problems with our 'cultural' compatibility, but there were a lot of problems, until my father brought in the photo's of his wife and children. The visas were ready the next day. We were all born in exotic 'coloured' places you see. The 'problems' became clear to my father after some questions and comments form the officer.

I just wanted to add this, though I know that personal experiences do not hold much sway with some posters who are horrified that Australia is evolving and no longer the same as the 1960's

Actually Shockadelic, there was a 'white Australia' policy. It was not seen by all migration officers as a way of 'screening' immigrants for 'cultural' compatibility if that was indeed the underlying motives as you claim.

My family's experience with Australian visa applications in the early 70's from Europe is not unique. There should have been no problems with our 'cultural' compatibility, but there were a lot of problems, until my father brought in the photo's of his wife and children. The visas were ready the next day. We were all born in exotic 'coloured' places you see. The 'problems' became clear to my father after some questions and comments form the officer.

I just wanted to add this, though I know that personal experiences do not hold much sway with some posters who are horrified that Australia is evolving and no longer the same as the 1960's