Foxy, "Named the "Whingeing Pom Egg," they feature a frowning
face the opposite to the usual Sunny Queen smiling eggs."

However the photo accompanying the article is of recently arrived, brown, shaven-headed, angry eggs, not the usual chalk-white of the English at all.

Hmmmm.....but after flipping through the PC rule book it appears you are right. The Politically Correct Catch 22 being that only those of Anglo Celtic ancestry and gingers may be joked about with impunity. So they must be Poms and fair game (like Aussies).

Apologies to the English, it is a joke in poor taste that will backfire commercially and rightly so.

Dear Cornflower,

I gave you the Liz Thompson book - where the author
clearly provides the information that you asked me
to verify - I gave you an entire list of other
sources where this information is also verified.
I cited a film - where again these historical facts
are provided - and I told you that this information
can also be verified in heaps of other historical
records at National and State Libraries - as well as
from individual experiences of my own family members,
those of Examinator's and others - who had actually
lived through that period.

If that isn't enough for you - then perhaps you'd
better examine your own mindset and give closer
inspection to the reasons behind why this is the case?
I can't do any more.

As for the "Whingeing Pom Eggs," - come on.
How on earth could you take that seriously?
The entire article is done - tongue-in cheek!
If you were to read my thread -
"From Somewhere Else," where a
British poster with a delicious sense of humour
related the story - of the "Bacchus Marsh Lion Park,"
in Victoria - that had signs up outside,
"Poms on bicycles admitted free!"

In any case - don't you know that it takes
a genius to whinge appealingly?

My advice to you my dear is:

"Fear less, hope more; Eat less, chew more;
Whine less, breathe more; Talk less, say more,
Love more, and all good things will be yours!"

Today the race discrimination against Asians is bigger than 15 years before.
There is a study from Australian National University about the race discrimination for job-seekers.
Changing only the names of the job-seekers, dramatically changed the number of callbacks for job interviews. In one industry sector the callbacks for Asian names callbacks dropped more than 90% comparing with Anglo names!
The worst of all is that for Asians (Chinese. Middle Eastern) they do not improve their chance for job interviews when they had better CVs, better qualifications or experiences.

http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/AuditDiscrimination.pdf

31 October 2005,
A RESEARCH NOTE for the Australian Parliament writes that
“Persons who have come to Australia from either North Africa and the Middle East or from Vietnam, have rates of unemployment much higher than other overseas-born persons… Factors which contribute to the higher than average unemployment rates for migrants from the above regions include their low level of English language proficiency as well as the high proportion that come to Australia under the humanitarian and (to a lesser extent) family reunion categories”
Unfortunately it does not write anything for migrant’s difficulties to find work of cause their race or their working conditions
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/RN/2005-06/06rn15.pdf

According to a study from the University of Western Sydney about Australian Arabs' and Muslims' experiences of post-September 11 racism, “for many citizens of Arab and Muslim background racism, abuse and violence form part of an everyday landscape of fear and incivility… women especially reported an increasing unwillingness to go out into public spaces, while many respondents generally exhibited a sense of disenfranchisement from civic life… religious intolerance needs to be deemed as unacceptable as institutional discrimination or racial abuse.”
Some 71% of respondents who had experienced racism, abuse or violence identified the perpetrators as 'Australian','Aussies', 'Anglo', 'Anglo-Saxon', 'Anglo-Australian', 'Originally from England', 'English Speaking Backgrounds', 'English', 'White', 'White Australian', 'Caucasian' and the like. Five cases (3.4%) were identified as Southern European; one case only (0.5%) as 'Aboriginal'; 22.3% No Response and 2.7% 'Other'.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/isma/research/UWSReport.pdf
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Foxy

No, you haven't proved your assertion that, "They (migrants) were ...invariably doing jobs rejected by other Australians." However another poster has given a concrete example proving the contrary.

If you are determined to see Australia as a non-welcoming, racist user and abuser of migrants then so be it I guess. If you really believe that, why not get out there and tell everyone before they come.

It doesn't really matter though, for every person with a jaundiced view on either side of your divide there are hundreds who take a balanced view: that on the whole and in by far the greatest majority of cases both the welcoming country and migrants have benefited enormously. Sure there are hiccups and concessions have to be made on both sides but the end result is worth the effort.

Regarding the lame, worn-out sledging of 'Poms', yes I reckon where the person tries to rub it in it does goes beyond the joke. A few eggs appearing at random might have been mildly funny, whereas labelling thousands of eggs is going out of the company's way to confirm a stereotype of British and Irish people. It is as blunt as a hammer and verging on ridicule.

Of course political correctness deems that disparaging jokes about 'dominant' whites are always funny. All part of having their position changed, huh?

As is so evident from their comedy, the Brits and Irish have broad shoulders and can laugh at themselves, but there is a difference between wit and playful ribbing and laying it on thick with a trowel, caring nought for any offence.

However it is much more significant that you are not so quick or game to make a similar jibe about brown eggs and a different cultural group. What is sauce for the goose might not sauce for the gander, but you have ways of rationalising that, just as you seem able to portray Australia's immigration policies as one-sided and fraught with problems, without conceding any positives at all.

Balance please - the Oz experience and lifestyle can't be all bad for all migrants.

Dear Cornflower,

OMG!

I see that I've totally over-estimated you!
My apologies - I now realize that
you simply don't have the
required comprehension skills - kindly
re-read all of my posts again - SLOWLY!
Perhaps then you just may begin to understand
where I'm coming from. Today it is now
possible to explore the past by means of large
numbers of books, articles, films and so on.
You don't have to take my word for it.

Many things have changed since the 1949s and
1950s. Much has been achieved. Tolerance and
understanding have broadened out for most
people, though admittedly - not for all.

Unfortunately - I took you questions seriously
and in good faith.
I actually believed you wanted answers that any
high school child is taught
as part of their study of the social history
of this country. I gave you a huge list of
references - what I told you is historical
fact - whether you like it or not! That in no way
however, is a reflection on today's Australia -
merely a part of it's history.

Also -that does not mean - that I am anti -British -
or anti Aussie (which I'm proud to include
myself as being by the way) - and for your
information - I have Brits in my own family!
They by the way - do have a sense of humour!

Anyway, I can see that you have your own mindset -
about me - well that's something I'll simply have
to learn to live with!

Enjoy your gruntlement!

Foxy,

Steady with the nasturtiums, it is only a debate.

You still haven't answered the original question. You alleged that,"They (migrants) were ...invariably doing jobs rejected by other Australians." I asked for the proof.

My position is plain, I would just like the record to be set straight. Post WW2, Australia did as well as any well-meaning country could do to welcome and settle people fleeing Europe.

Australia itself had huge problems which I have alluded to previously. Newspapers of the time are are filled with stories of hardship. Many Australians lived in make-shift dwellings and watered their dirt floors daily with a perforated (plum)jam tin on a stick. All but the privileged had a dripping pot (topped up with pan fat if and when meat was available) that, along with a piece of bread and scalding black tea did for breakfast. Prior to the war, men were known to enlist to get employment and for the first time got three meals in a day.

It is easy for instance, to claim that some migrants did not have jobs that matched their expectations, but such jobs might not have even been available in underdeveloped Australia at that time and anyhow, who else had anything but mundane work?

You judge Australia's efforts to house, settle and give employment to migrants of the Fifties by your modern pampered lifestyle and the human rights of today. As well, while being ever-ready and quick to take pot-shots, you haven't thought it necessary to make comparison between Australia's efforts to settle people post-WW2 and that of comparable countries.

Your belt is set much too high, always resulting in bouquets for migrants and brick bats for Australia.

BTW, you side-stepped the invitation to show just how good humour can be directed at others than Anglos and Aussies.

A robust discussion is good and I enjoy your posts. You can always bank on a smile and coffee later.