Australia is not an immigrant country.

Many other politicians and lobby groups have perpetuated the myth that Australia is an immigrant nation. Unfortunately those who perpetuate this myth do not seem concerned about the people they exclude and insult by doing so. According to the 2006 census, 76% of the Australian population is native born and 92% has at least one parent who was born in Australia.

There are two groups significant to Australia’s history that are not covered by the label immigrant. The ancestors of the Australian Aboriginal people were not immigrants of the Australian nation. They migrated to a continent that was not yet known as Australia. They are the first people of this land, the original people of a land that was not then Australia.

While the history of the continent starts with the Aboriginal people the Australian nation began as penal colonies. Therefore, the history of the nation (as opposed to the land) starts with the convicts. It is a bit of a stretch to refer to convicts, who were brought here by force, as immigrants. The word ‘immigrant’ surely implies some degree of choice in the migration process. The convicts had no choice about coming to Australia.

Britain exiled around 160 000 convicts to Australia with an average age of 26. They created families at a time when large families were the norm. This multiplication over a period of 200 plus years, for the majority of which large families were the norm, surely created a significant number of Australians who are descendants of convicts and therefore non-immigrants.

This myth making also creates a false impression to those who live outside Australia that everyone in Australia has recently arrived from elsewhere. That is an insult not only to Australians who are descendant from the Aborigines and convicts but to all who are descendants of native born Australians or are themselves native born.

Our history, and therefore our country, is far too varied to be encompassed by any label. Why do we need a label, anyway? Isn’t the word ‘Australia’ enough

Dear Holy Moly,

"Good Golly ... Dear Molly..."

Australia has been built as a Nation by the contribution of migrants.

Before the 1950s it was a backwater of the world - that nobody knew anything about. Including the population itself - which was not sure
of its identity. We were all "British" you know. They even played
'God Save the Queen' when we won gold medals at the Olympics.
Did that show our 'Australian' identity?

Denying migrants is denying the growth, cultural development and rich diversity of this country -over the past sixty years - and its continuance by future contribution of migrants.

Many born in this country of migrant families identify with the culture and heritage of their ancestry be it Irish, Scottish, British,
Greek, Italian, Chinese, Vietnamese, et cetera. And by birth they are all Australians.

So what is the point of your argument about migrants? - apart from
the Aboriginal people and a few convicts - we're all descended from
migrants - that's the history of this Nation - as is the history of
America, Canada, New Zealand, and all of South America.

Holy Moly Foxy! You have replied to my post without even reading it!
I said nothing about denying the contribution of migrants to the growth and development of Australia, which has certainly been significant and valuable. We should remember however that Australia, with its infra structure, would not have been available for the migrants had it not been for the 160 000+ convicts and their descendants. The point I was making was that the term 'immigrant nation' excludes those of us who are convict and Aboriginal descendants.

If the term ‘immigrant nation’ is being used in the sense that everyone who ever came to a country from another place is an immigrant then the term could be applied to any country in the world, not just the few you mentioned. Yet here in Australia ‘immigrant nation’ is flown like a banner, apparently to give the impression that immigration is what separates Australia from other countries. In other words applying the term ‘immigrant nation’ to Australia is just another bit of myth making, or to be more accurate, bull dust. Unfortunately those who perpetuate this myth do not seem concerned about the people they exclude and insult by doing so.

"......That is an insult not only to Australians who are descendant from the Aborigines and convicts but to all who are descendants of native born Australians or are themselves native born.

Our history, and therefore our country, is far too varied to be encompassed by any label. Why do we need a label, anyway? Isn’t the word ‘Australia’ enough"
Posted by Holy Moly, Saturday, 12 April 2008 7:28:19 AM
______________________________

'.....all who are descendants of native born Australians..themselves native born'..

Excuse me??

So,- not only...Aboriginals/convicts...but the above..? Er...., which descendants did they come from then?..,or did they just pop out of the ground??

Australia is Australia IS "Australia"...what are YOU calling it?

Bulldust indeed.

Dear Holy Moly,

Are you one of the 'excluded and insulted ones?'

Join the Club - all the minions of immigrants have been made to feel that way for centuries - particularly in Australia.

In our history books you get, "The First Fleet arrived. It brought 1000 English convicts."

It didn't. It brought 1000 convicts but probably they came from a dozen different countries. As somebody put it so delightfully,
"English jails were no respecters of nationality."

The first Italians arrived on January 26, 1788 - Giuseppe Tuso. There were people from South Africa, there were people from Ceylon, from India, from Spain, from Portugal, from Hungary.

So people say, "Do you believe Australia should become a multi-racial society?" and I always reply, "It doesn't matter what I think, I can tell you what it is, which is a society of tremendous diversity."

Holy Moly,
It is not a myth. Its an obvious truth, depending on how far back your research goes.

If you go back far enough, we are supposed to have our beginnings in Africa.

Did you know that according to some linguists, certain aboriginal words in northern Aus are very similar to Arabic words, with similar meanings. This gives rise to the concept that Arab traders reached our shores in times past.

So some aboriginals may have some Arabic heritage.

The term " we are a nation of immigrants" is one that is usually used by those struggling to find counter argument to those advocating lowering the high immigration rate. It is usually accompanied by accusations of 'racism', 'xenophobia' and 'you hate migrants'. Being one who opposes high immigration, I have come across these terms often, even though my opposition is based on economic, enviromental and social grounds.

I always ignor the 'nation of immigrants' bit as it is like saying 'we are all humans'. Yes we are, but it is irrevelant, especially to a debate on immigration.

Holy Moly,
I forgot to add. Many aboriginals, or even the majority, these days can claim some other heritage as well.

Ginx, you have, perhaps deliberately, misinterpreted my post. I am sure you realise that there are many native born Australians who are descendants of migrants. Those native born descendants are obviously NOT immigrants—they are native Australians. Take the example of a young Australian girl I know with Greek great grandparents. She is often distressed by people asking her about the Greek culture and implying that she is Greek when in fact she simply thinks of herself as Australian. She wants (and deserves) to be thought of as Australian. Yet, and I think this comes about because of the misconception that all Australians are immigrants, people continually think of her and refer to her as Greek.

Australians like her are made to feel they don’t belong here because, instead of being honoured as native Australians, they are told they are immigrants. Consequently many feel a need to seek their cultural identity from the country their descendants came from. Is this one of the reasons why so many young people leave our shores? How can we expect them to feel a strong sense of place and connection to the land and the country if they do not see themselves as natives?

What would I call Australia? Marvellous. A marvellous country of diversity.

What history books are you reading (or misreading) Foxy? The First Fleet did not bring 1000 convicts. There were 1400 people who sailed from Portsmouth on 13th May 1787 of which 780 were convicts. Furthermore I cannot imagine any history book, certainly not any recently published, claiming the 780 convicts were English. Many of them were Irish for a start! What they may have said was that ‘the First Fleet carried convicts from England to Australia’ or words to that effect. Such a statement does not claim the convicts were English.

A very common and well known convict story is the story John ‘Black’ Caesar a convict of African parentage so I don’t know where you get the idea we are taught that convicts were English.

But I am intrigued at your implication that just because someone’s ancestors may have been from ‘Ceylon, from India, from Spain, from Portugal, from Hungary’ that person is an immigrant and not a native Australian.

Yes, Banjo, I agree, if we use the term ‘immigrant’ in the general sense then it is indeed just like saying ‘we are all humans’. However I am referring to the implications of using ‘immigrant’ as a descriptive term for Australia as though it separates this country from others because of its immigrants. Labels narrow the focus and can exclude as much as they can include. Any label applied to Australia is going to be inadequate. This is a country that is neither New World nor Old World, yet has a modern culture and an ancient culture. It includes a land that is home to the people of the world’s oldest continuing culture, a nation that began as a penal colony, has an ancestry that embraces a kaleidoscope of religions, races and backgrounds.

Dear Holy Moly,

The source of my information is a textbook called, "The Changing Australians : A Social History," by Sue Fabian. It's a History text book - issued as part of the High School Curriculum for Year 9 Students. It belongs to my son.

If you truly believe that we are a country to which migrants have made a valuable and richly diverse contribution - that we are all part of the tapestry of being Australian - why would you deny migrants the recognition that you claim you're being denied?

I don't understand. I don't have a problem with all of us being -
Australians - I take that for granted - that indeed we are. But to say that "Australia is not an immigrant nation," is to deny it's heritage - yours, mine, and ours!

Your response to me makes your point a little clearer I'll grant, but I am still perplexed by your denial of immigrant influence in the building of this nation, Australia.

Foxy's last post puts the point very accurately.

Further;-YOU referred to Australia-labelling. my point was that we ALL refer to Australia as...well,..Australia! I cannot see your point there either, I really can't.

Dear Holy Moly,

I fully agree with Ginx. I can't see your point.

Australia is a multicultural, multilayered nation. Only Indigenous Australians can lay claim to ancestry that dates back more than 220 years and even they arrived as immigrants from distant lands many thousands of years ago. On top of recognising our Indigenous Heritage, we need to celebrate and acknowledge our status as an Immigrant Nation.

From the first prison ships of 1788, to the significant numbers of skilled and humanitarian migrants arriving by jet in the 21st century,
Australia is a land that continues to be populated by immigrants.

With one in four Australians born overseas and 40% of Australians either being born overseas, or having at least one parent born overseas, Australia's status as an Immigrant Nation is an indisputable truth. In our big cities like Sydney and Melbourne Multiculturalism is now the mainstream, It is something to celebrate and something that brings profound cultural, social and economic benefits.

And for your further information - these facts can be confirmed by
reading, "An Immigrant Nation: Briefing Paper." This material is based on "Australia 2030," Published 2001, Commonwealth of Australia.

Holy Moly,
I am not sure if what you wrote about the 2006 census is right or not''According to the 2006 census, 76% of the Australian population is native born and 92% has at least one parent who was born in Australia.''
I can not understand you from one site you wrote that 92% has at least one parent who was born in Australia (It means that 92% has at least one parent who was MIGRANT) and from the other site you say that Australia is not an immigrant nation.
Holy Moly,
When we say that Australia is a nation of migrants we do not mean that the majority of Australians born overseas but that the majority of Australians are migrants or come from migrants.
As you know there are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4rth etc generations of MIGRANTS.
''A second generation migrant defined in Australian Gensus statistics as a parson with at least one parent who was born overseas''
we can classify the children as first, second, third, or fourth generation migrants. When parents’ generational status differed, we use the most recent generational status. For instance, the child of a first generation and second generation parent is second generation.
The word native usually used for people who have lived in a country from unknown time, deep in the past as Aborigines for Australia or Indians for America.
For example the Native American population, including American Indians and Alaska Natives, once totaled nearly 24 million, with over 500 tribes.
Really I can not understand why you wrote this text.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

The first fleet encountered some Greek fishermen on the way - they were picked up and shipped off to Australia along with the convicts.
Scratch world history and you will find a history of migration. Few nations, however, have a modern history that has been created almost exclusively by migrants. Migration refers not to volition but to the movement of people from one country to another. If we are to exclude people who had no choice in migrating then we would not only exclude convicts but also children and refugees. (most refugees did not choose to migrate to Australia - they fled their homeland seeking refuge wherever it was being offered.)
The language we use to describe our past is important in understanding that past. By calling Australia an Immigrant nation we are drawing attention to the fact that our culture, our lifestyle and our institutions have been shaped by these migrants; it reminds us that we have crowded out the indiginous understandings of what it means to live on this continent, it reminds us that we have imposed on the lanscape a lifestyle that is alien to it.
Over time the label will become less and less relevant just as it is no longer to call England an immigrant nation but as long as Aboriginal people remain dispossessed and to all intents and purposes strangers in their own land this land should be regarded as a land if immigrants.

Well, Foxy I am not familiar with the text you have quoted from but if you have quoted accurately it clearly contains misinformation. It would be a good idea to bring it to the school’s notice.

To say ‘Australia is not an immigrant nation’ is not denying our heritage. I am saying our heritage is far broader and has more aspects to it than the immigration aspect. I am saying we need to acknowledge the rich diversity of our heritage which most certainly includes migrants but also includes the convicts (who, as I pointed out, cannot be termed migrants since they were exiled here) and the Aboriginal people who do not see themselves as migrants, and other native Australians (such as those whose ancestors were migrants). Bear in mind that I am objecting to the use of the word ‘immigrant’ to describe Australia because it implies that all Australians are immigrants, which is not true. Being a descendant of an immigrant does not make someone an immigrant. Those who are born here are native Australians. To say that ‘Australia is an immigrant country’ is in fact to deny our heritage because Australia is more than that and is largely a native population (76%).

Dear Holy Moly,

I'm not going to argue with you any longer because we see things differently. You prefer to buy, 'hook, line, and sinker,' the article written by JB Rowley, entitled, "Australia is NOT an Immigrant Country,":
http://www.whispermysecret.com/Immigrant%20Country.html
that merely expresses an opinion. And you've chosen to run with it.

I prefer to stick with my point of view, taken from the material provided by the Government of Australia in their book,
"Australia 2030." Where it is clearly stated that Australia is an Immigrant Nation. The people we now call "Australians" have been reshaped several times. The First Australians, the Indigenous people, came to Australia through Asia at least 40,000 years ago.

It also tells us that the first massive European re-shaping of the Australian population came with the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788. Australia began to change dramatically. The convicts and free settlers of the next sixty years were mainly from England, Ireland, and Scotland, with a few major European groups such as Germans.

They changed the culture, the economy, the society and even the ecology and environment of Australia. Change was rapid and sometimes violent.

The First Fleet contained Jews, Malays, a West Indian, a Greek, Italians and people from various other parts of Europe.

Records show that our early settlements also included people born in Austria, Canada, the Cape of Good Hope, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Holland, Hungary, India, Latvia, Madagascar, Mauritius, the Persian Gulf, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Sweden and the USA.

Then another huge change. The discovery of gold in the eastern colonies in the 1850s and 1860s brought in a new flood of people - more English, Irish and Scottish people, but now also larger numbers from America and Europe, and especially China.

Anyway, I won't go on and on - I'm not going to convince someone - who's made up their mind on the subject. Someone who doesn't want to be 'excluded' but is willing to 'exclude' others, - and won't accept the facts as presented by their own (historical) Government records.

cont'd.

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't mean to suggest that you're not. I don't want to be part of the "You tell 'em love!"
mob.

I like what Peter van Vliet wrote in his post back in 2006.
"The values that to me help define what it means to be Australian are those of democracy, mateship and country. These are inclusive and profoundly optimistic values, which all Australians, regardless of their cultural background can carry into the 21st century.

Combined with recognition of our Indigenous history and a celebration of our status as an Immigrant Nation, these are values that can serve to unite rather than divide Australians!"

"Being Australian also means acknowledging the great local creed of
mateship. Mateship means lending a hand and looking out for others.
It means relating to ALL people as equals and not according to the caste and class distinctions more characteristic of the old world..."

HI ASymeonakis

Re: ‘92% has at least one parent who was born in Australia’. This means of the 92%, some have one parent born overseas and one parent born in Australia and the rest of that 92% have both parents born in Australia. It does NOT mean that 92% have one parent born overseas.

I also question your definition of the word ‘native’. Actually the word native means ‘belonging to a person by birth’ and one’s native country is ‘the place or environment in which one was born’ (Macquarie Dictionary 3rd edition).

My point is that the label ‘immigrant nation’ (and its continual use) implies that the majority of Australians have just arrived from elsewhere. I feel it is time to move on from a term that perhaps served a purpose a long time ago and look at the full implications of its continued use. One of the negative consequences is that many young Australians are pressured to think of themselves as migrants, rather than native Australians, simply because they have some migrant ancestry. Is it fair to refer to second generation, third generation (and so on) Australians as migrants?

And Ginx, I’m flummoxed by your post.

You said: ‘I am still perplexed by your denial of immigrant influence in the building of this nation, Australia.’

I don’t understand this point. At no time have I denied the immigrant influence and neither would I. In fact I celebrate it. The contribution and influence of Australia’s migrants is to be celebrated and honoured in the same way as the contribution and influence of native Australians should be.

And neither do I understand your second point when you say: ‘was that we ALL refer to Australia as...well,..Australia!’

I thought that was the point I was making – that we do not need to label Australia.

Hi Foxy

In your last post you referred to me as ‘excluding others’. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. At no time have I suggested anyone be excluded. Perhaps you are simply being mischievous as your name suggests.

I am not questioning the facts, as you suggest. I am questioning the application of a term that is probably outdated and is causing discomfort to some people in our society. In particular it saddens me to see confusion and distress in young people who consider themselves native Australians and want to be viewed as such but are perceived by society as migrants.

And I am sorry you thought we were arguing. I thought I was simply trying to clarify a point you misunderstood because as far as I can see we are actually in agreement much of the time and I do thank you for the discussion.

I am not sure what you mean by the ‘you tell ‘em’ mob.

I know what you mean, Holy Moly. I've got a friend who's Asian Australian, who'll frequently have people ask her "where she comes from", to which she responds, "Canberra", and they they say, "but where originally?" to which she responds, "Canberra".

As I understand it, you're not denigrating the contribution of immigrants, simply saying that it's not true that *all* Australians think of themselves, or indeed are, immigrants.

I think, however, that you are being a bit oversensitive in your response to the term "nation of immigrants". For a start, who says it? Our former treasurer, two years ago? Is that it? People often point out we've got a proud immigrant heritage, but you don't deny that. I don't think I often hear "immigrant nation" in our national discource.

Even if we did, I don't think anyone using that expression really means 100% of Australians are immigrants. The point is *most* of our ancestors emigrated to get here, we've all got 'em in the family, we are a multi-racial country and that has deeply affected our culture.

Also, while I agree some people may feel boxed in by their ancestry, others enjoy the connection to a long abandoned homeland. I cannot speak the language of the country my grandparents came from, I feel completely Australian, yet nevertheless I enjoy that connection, I visit the country, I keep it in my heart.

Saying that Australia is NOT a country of immigrants could be (to some) just as insulting as saying we are. The fact is that, as a nation, as a federation, we are a very young country, and our provenance is all over the shop. Every descriptor is too narrow.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your point, and I think it's good for us to be reminded that, as diverse as Australia is, it's also good remember our common ancestors and remind ourselves that we're first and foremost Australians.

By the way, did you write the article Foxy linked to? Or do you just relate to it? You have cut and pasted from it, I notice.

"...Take the example of a young Australian girl I know with Greek great grandparents. She is often distressed by people asking her about the Greek culture and implying that she is Greek when in fact she simply thinks of herself as Australian. She wants (and deserves) to be thought of as Australian..."

I understood your point by this excellent example. BUT it does not automatically follow that we must in some way deliberately subjugate the influence of the immigrant in the creating of Australia as a nation, because some might feel like your Greek friend.

"..Our history, and therefore our country, is far too varied to be encompassed by any label. Why do we need a label, anyway? Isn’t the word ‘Australia’ enough.."

THAT'S what I meant. What label?? We DO say 'Australia'! What 'label' are you referring to?

Let's agree to mutual flummoxation(!)HM. You started this thread; any responses you have received are based on your initial statements. If we are not understanding each other ,then it has emanated from that point!

Hi Vanilla.

Your post is eloquently expressed.

The term ‘immigrant nation’ is still being used so I wasn’t just referring to our former treasurer but rather picking up on the sensitivity of those I interact with as well as my own sense of alienation when I hear it.

However you have made some excellent points and I thank you for joining in the discussion.

Dear Holy Moly,

Vanilla does more than just express herself eloquently. She usually
presents more than a one-sided argument on any given subject.
Which makes her one of the best posters on this Forum.

She also rarely loses her self-control, which in a Forum such as this - says a great deal.

You asked about the 'You tell 'em love!' mob that I referred to in my previous post.

In the late 1950s - 60s, being self-consciously 'Australian' became a subject of entertainers and the newspapers. While Australian television shows like 'Skippy' (about life in a national park as seen through the adventures of a tame kangaroo) were popular, the character of the Aussie housewife was mocked by the clever skits of
over-the-fence-natter by the Australian actress Dawn Lake.
"You tell 'em love!" became the symbol of the tea-sipping-hair-in-curlers-gossip-over-the-fence-brigade.

Later, this humour was turned to the 'Ocker' male, in the style of Graham Kennedy and the writing of Nino Culotta, and the city suburbs became the backdrop for the new Aussie image. Now the language of the pub-crawling, hard-working, dry-witted Aussie gained popularity.
"You drongo," or "He's a galah!" became the accompaniment to the traditional "bloody bastard."

The suburban life and well-being of Australian society became the butt of many jokes, and the intolerance towards 'new Australians' and
'coloureds' was sent up as an unjustifiable prejudice.

It wasn't until the 1970s that the Ocker Aussie was packaged for world consumption in films and comics, but once done, the exaggerated image of 'Bazza (Barry) MacKenzie' became one which many Australians were no longer so proud of.

This critical self-consciousness had become more and more apparent in the late 1960s, and forced both politicians and the public to revise not only policies but also many of their long-held and cherished notions about themselves and the rest of the world.

Perhaps that will eventually happen to our overall sense of National Identity - and we shall be able to finally see that we are indeed -
(all of us) - Australians.

For some, it's still a long way off yet ...

Apparently.

Holy Moly,
Immigrants with Immigrant laws have imprisoned a huge percentage of the original Australians; they have become the 1st Fleet Convicts .

Immigrants have contributed by ruining huge areas of Australia and continue to do so in our thoughtless quest for "gold " in many forms and we stupidly think we need more immigrants to survive .

My family ancestor came out on the third Fleet as a convict and then prospered by ruining the environment and selling grog to his mates and Co.

Now with Aboriginal blood in my family I feel less of immigrant/convict stock and more "Australian".

Hopefully my family in the future will be more responsible with what we want and we have acquired and become less obsessed with Economic Growth .

For me native are ONLY THE ABORIGINES, the rest Australians are migrants, 1st, 2nd, 3d etc generation migrants. All we are Australians but NATIVE are ONLY THE ABORIGINES. I can not tell that my grant children are native because they born here and they have the same rights, with aborigines. We must separate and protect aborigines rights, history, civilization and not try with various tricks to give similar rights to migrants. We will never have the same rights as Aborigines. If I come in your house, kill you and take your house it does not mean that your house belong to me or to my ancestors because your children or ancestors do not have the power to claim it. I understand that the guns, the power creates the right but this kind of rights is the shame from human history, of human brutality. I hope in the future Aborigines could claim their rights in high degree. Until then we must keep separate the migrants from the native (Aborigines)Australians.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Hi Ginx,

Yes, you are right. I think we are in a mutual state of flummox! Perhaps it is as a result of the limitations of written communication.

You wrote: “You started this thread; any responses you have received are based on your initial statements. If we are not understanding each other, then it has emanated other, then it has emanated from that point!” Actually it does not necessarily follow that confusion arises only from the beginning of a discussion, it can occur at any time during the discussion.

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. I enjoyed our exchange.

And ASymeonakis your post saddens me. In the past in Australia others have taken the attitude (as you say you do) that ‘we must separate and protect aborigines rights’ and it is that condescending and paternal attitude that has resulted in cruel injustices to be endured by Aboriginal people.

I think your philosophy of separation (‘we must keep separate’) would do the Australian Aboriginal people a great disservice. Keeping people separate on the basis of race is bound to create resentment and animosity from other races in the community. How would that benefit the Aboriginal people in the long term?

Also, if you understand the history of the country you will know, as my Aboriginal relatives often remind me, that many native Australians whose descendants were either convicts or early settlers are highly likely to have Aboriginal ancestry. So as time goes by and more and more Australians research their family histories we will find more Australians who can legitimately be moved into your separate group. Such a large group, separated on the basis of race, is bound to be divisive.

Isn't the term 'immigrant nation' just an intended diversionary substitution for the now widely discredited and rejected description of Australia as a 'multi-cultural society'? 'Multi-cultural' is now an epithet.

Isn't its apparent applicability at some point to every Australian's ancestry intended to distract from its real purpose, that of excusing the both open and covert desire on the part of the by now significant majority of the politician class to set aside the 100% British legal and constitutional heritage all Australians have enjoyed?

That legal and constitutional heritage, including its accepted mechanism for constitutional change, the one that every single Federal politician that has ever been, and every non-native born applicant for citizenship past and present, has voluntarily sworn loyalty to, irrespective of their migrant status, be it recent or distant, is the real target of the promoters of such labels as 'immigrant nation' or 'multi-cultural society'. Those promoters seek, by creating the inference that since all can in some way be labeled as migrants, to justify the betrayal in particular of the cultural heritage of those of predominantly British origin (the vast majority), and the CONSTITUTIONAL heritage of ALL, irrespective of origins, in the Australian population.

Under that British legal and constitutional heritage, the politician class in Australia are equal in status under the Crown to all the rest of us Australians. That status isn't good enough for a lot of those politicians and politician-wannabes. They want to be above the rest of us, as masters. Let them denigrate and abandon the Constitution enough, and they quick as lightning will be.

What is the opposite of master? Slave.

If you feel you already are little better than a slave in this country, then look to evasion of the requirements of the Constitution as its likely cause.

It is a pity to see so many well-intentioned posters making so many good points with respect as to how such terms impact upon individuals, yet seemingly remaining at cross-purposes. Just thought I'd illuminate the real target of this misleading terminology.

"It is a pity to see so many well-intentioned posters making so many good points with respect as to how such terms impact upon individuals, yet seemingly remaining at cross-purposes. Just thought I'd illuminate the real target of this misleading terminology."
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 1:08:34 PM

How very sweet of you, Forrest!!

Dear Ginx,

Love your reference to Forrest and Sweets ... onya!

However, I think his obvious objections to "Multiculturalism" and his
"Rule Britannia" stance says it all ...

He's suffering from a very bad case of -

mistaken nonentity!

Hi kartiya jim

There is some irony in claiming to be more Australian as a result of Aboriginal blood since Australia came about because of European colonisation and development. Prior to that the continent consisted of many different Aboriginal nations.

Hi Forrest Gumpp,

I can’t say I ever saw the use of the term ‘immigrant nation’ in that light myself. I see it more as a label that was probably introduced with good intentions at the time (possibly way back in Gough Whitlam’s day). It probably was originally intended in the sense that all human beings are immigrants but has now taken on a life of its own and has now become as you say ‘misleading terminology’.

Mistaken nonentity!! Love that!