Shockadelic

So I "mischievously distort" your words and Deakin's: he said “blend”, not “mix” (although you ‘…don't care what the motivations of Deakin and Barton were’).

As a master wordsmith and connoisseur of synonyms, you will be able to tell me the difference between “blend” and “mix”? And apply it to this context?

You say I "deceitfully omit" reference to your hypothesis: ‘that ANY of millions of possible immigration policies could exist. Why is the current policy more preferable?’ I’m not sure which “current policy” you mean. Is it the Howrd Government’s current large-scale non-discriminatory immigration policy (the largest ever) or the current policy of integration which Mr Howard quietly introduced recently to replace multiculturalism?

You say: ‘The SAME people support both: the "pinko/leftist/ABC/Fairfax/union/Muslim/
feminist/gay/green/chardonnay swilling/latte sipping/humanities lecturers/Marxist/state school teachers/Howard-Haters conspiracy". The people involved in this agenda hold the exact compulsory opinions that I noted about nuclear power, abortion, and GM crops.’ Wow!

Yes, I know the world is complex and it helps some to simplify it. But to lump together all your favourite hates and assert they reside as the common beliefs of one identifiable group of Australians is perverse. I suppose it demonstrates more about you and your hates than it reveals about any other real Australian I know.

Your beef with the “watermelon” Greens is of no interest to me. I’m not a member. Go fight them.

Your final word on the real subject is of more concern: ‘…a less than ideal policy like "White Australia" might actually work better in the real world.’

Can you tell me how you would get a "White Australia" policy into “the real world” of Australia? How would it work? I’m sure the 455,026 Indigenous Australians will want to know what you propose for them in your White Australia. As will the 700,000 Australians with Chinese ancestry, the 235,000 with Indian ancestry, and so on.

Do tell.

Yvonne, you've come down with FrankGol's "literal language" virus.

I said you "referred to" political correctness. And I didn't say you were against multiculturalism.

I "make some strange claims"?.
I didn't state that one opinion automatically implies another.
Only that certain people hold contradictory opinions.
The CONSERVATIVES in the US are pro-capital punishment and anti-abortion, not the "progressive" watermelons.

And the "Chardonnay swilling" list was a quote from an earlier post.
Not a LITERAL statement of who drinks latte or chardonnay.
Is there a treatment for this virus?

And FrankGol (unfortunately):
Why do I get the feeling I'm talking to a 3-year old?
"No, Frank, I said DON'T touch the stove!"

Blend? Mix?
You're "educated". I presume you own a dictionary.
Open it and read it.
Notice the multiple meanings?
Just like there would have been for "white" and "race" a hundred years ago.

Which "current policy"?
As you know, the "quietly introduced" policy of integration has not actually changed the immigration intake, has it?

The government may prefer integration but the "choice" is the migrants', not the locals'.

Apparently, now I'm a hatemonger:
"lump together all your favourite hates", "you and your hates".
The tongue-in-cheek quote was from another post, not a list of my own personal hates.
"Incorrectly misconstrued"?

The Greens are only the formal tip of the "watermelon" iceberg. And I never said you were one.

A "White Australia" policy in "the real world" of today?
What of the Indigenous, Chinese, Indians?

Oh, you're SO CLEVER!
The White Australia policy, Mr History Professor, was an IMMIGRATION policy and therefore DIDN'T apply to Aboriginals, nor would any contemporary IMMIGRATION policy!

The fact there are 700,000 Chinese and 235,000 Indians disproves your own assertions that little demographic change is occurring.
There's plenty of Indians in India and Chinese in China.
They aren't "endangered species" that need our help to survive.

Here's more food for thought (or more likely, complete misinterpretation):
If the White Australia policy was just about race, not culture, why weren't Indians, Iranians and Arabs encouraged to migrate?

They're Causasian, right?
But they're definitely not CULTURALLY RELATED.

Shockadelic,

could you please read my post again? I'm quite simple. Generally I literally mean what I say. You don't have to read between the lines, interpret or second guess. That's so English class at High School. Admittedly on occasion I have been a bit sarcastic.

If you think there is a literal virus going around and you want to communicate your thoughts then an effective method is to literally say what you mean.

On the issue of cultures. The culture of a white English man is more similar to the culture of a brown Iranian man, but very different from a white French man. Speaking from a woman's point of view of course.

What do you mean by 'culturally related'? How do you classify and sort cultures? By continent? By religion? By proximity? Remember the French and Germans hate and mistrust each other and share a long border and history and the Irish and English have killed each other for some 400 years. Are they culturally related?

Shockadelic

One last try and then I give up.

You say (or should I say SHOUT?), ‘The White Australia policy, Mr History Professor, was an IMMIGRATION policy and therefore DIDN'T apply to Aboriginals, nor would any contemporary IMMIGRATION policy!’

As I’ve already pointed out, the Attorney-General Alfred Deakin, introducing the Act that ushered in the White Australia Policy, told the Australian Parliament that the Indigenous people were ‘a dying race’ but he hoped that ‘…in their last hours they will be able to recognise not simply the justice, but the generosity of the treatment which the white race, who are dispossessing them and entering into their heritage, are according them.’

So the Indigenous Australians were going to die out and we were so generous to allow them to do it. That was the role assigned to Indigenous Australians under the White Australia Policy. It was certainly not just an immigration policy.

You’ll recall that Deakin also said that of the other many non-whites already in Australia a small number could be made honorary whites but the majority would have to be deported.

Now, once again, let’s turn to your claim that ‘…a less than ideal policy like "White Australia" might actually work better in the real world.’

What are you, Shockadelic, going to do with Indigenous Australians and other non-white Australians in your neo-White Australia?

Maybe I've misunderstood what you mean by “white”? Is it just another example of your (what was it?) non-literal language, analogy, metaphor, hypothesis, illustrative? Or one of your words with multiple meanings?

Seems pretty black-and-white to this 3-year-old History Professor. The Boers and the KKK had no problems comprehending what “white” meant. And I don't think you do either.

Yvonne, cultures don't have to love each other to be related, just ask the Serbs and Croats!

Geographical proximity (or lack of it) created linguistic, religious and racial overlaps (or lack of them).

Cultures related to us are European or other former European colonies (if the colonial culture dominates). Problem solved!

Unlike yourself, I often take the "devil's advocate" role, simply because a point hasn't been addressed by anybody else.
That's just the way I am.

FrankGol will have one last try and then give up.
If only!

Deakin said some non-whites could be honorary whites?
What an odd statement from an evil racist!
"Honorary" skin colour! Amazing!

The Boers and the KKK? Is this a chapter of Australian history I'm not familiar with, Professor?

Your thoughts were "nuanced" before, now they're "black and white".
So now there's only "one correct answer" to what "White Australia" meant?
Too simplistic for FrankGol, surely!

"What are you, Shockadelic, going to do with Indigenous Australians and other non-white Australians in your neo-White Australia?"

I, Shockadelic, didn't propose a neo-White Australia in the first place!

But, remember how the 1901 immigration law exempted resident migrants and didn't mention Aboriginals?
A contemporary law could do the same.

Hate to break it to you, but we live in a democracy.
Democracy is the people's government.
Not "you and your friends" government.
The government doesn't have to have "nuanced" policies; it needs to reflect the will of the people.

The majority of Australians have consistently voiced opposition to:
1 Massive immigration
2 Multicultural immigration
3 Massive multicultural immigration

I know your predictable response already: What if the "mob" are wrong?
What if the "mob" want to burn witches and own slaves?

If a democratic government wants to defy its own people, it should present its case and convince them.
Present the evidence, ethics, arguments.

If convinced, great!
If not, too bad for the goody-two-shoes government!

I repeat my question (precisely this time):
Why is the policy of massive multicultural immigration preferable to any other policy?

PRESENT YOUR CASE! (Capitals for emphasis)

The Age published a photo of jubilant Australians of an Iraqi origin with something like comment “Iraqis celebrate their team’s win in Asian Championship from Melbourne to (sorry, I'd forgotten)”.

NONSENSE!

However, even locally born and bread folks DO celebrate AUSTRALIAN after biologically historical.

That is a reaction on Anglo-racism – a pitiful situation for Muslim-reclaiming Western European/British outpost.