The second installment of the Immigration Nation—the Secret History of Us fulfilled my prediction made in my first post in response to the first episode of the program. The cynicism and negativity on this part of our history persisted, which have produced a curious, if not an outright ridiculous line of narrative.

This is the major outline of the second part: after the WWII, Australia embarked on a massive immigration program to boost its population for national security and economic development. Arthur Calwell and Ben Chifley were the major architects of the program, who succeeded in bringing a large number of non-British immigrants against overwhelming public resentment.

There is at least one major issue in the presentation calling into question the logic of the narrative.

What is the logic of depicting Calwell and Chifley in such a cynical way? Since they were the ones turning the tide of racism in the country by dismantling the WAP, why the program depicts them as being sneaky, shifty, and manipulative? The program talks about how Calwell “scared” or “frightened” the nation into a belief of “populate or perish”; the program also reveals how Calwell played propaganda games by employing public media; it also tells the audience how the minister colluded with the then PM to bring in people to the land, “without telling the cabinet or the party caucus”. Are we not supposed to praise those people who led the nation out of state of narrow-mindedness? Are we not supposed to make an effort to understand the two extraordinary men who thought ahead of their time and acted against public sentiment to bring the nation forward? Why don’t we give them the due credit of saving the nation from demise? Why don’t we celebrate the victory of reason over bigotry? Why do we keep on badmouthing those who did the most for the best of the country?

I totally agree with the writer. All my 'white' forbears came to Australia before 1850. Yet it was due to people like Curtin and Caldwell who saw the need to open up our country to other racial groups that led to the prosperity of the last half century. I am now married to a German born man who arrived in Australia in 1950 and with his German born wife quickly became naturalized. Their granddaughter is now married to a Tanzanian doctor with the World Health Organization working as a specialist in Uganda. This doctor has now been accepted for Australian residency. My husband now has a great-granddaughter of mixed race.
From my first marriage to another Australian who also had a long list of white forbears who came to Australia in the early years of settlement, I have a son who has lived and worked in China for 23 years. He married a Chinese woman who has now been accepted for Australian residency. I now have 3 grandchildren of mixed race.
As a business I have opened my home to people of several races, mostly Korean and Japanese, as a backpacker hostel for 6 months each year since January 2006. Many of these will seek to gain the qualifications to apply for Australian residency.
I believe that every racial group who comes to Australia should be encouraged to feel 'at home' in Australia. Historically every racial group has made a significant contribution, which may only be observed when looking back.

Peng
I did not watch this program so cannot offer any comment on its content. Most Australians do praise the end of the WAP and can see the policy for what it was - a fear campaign based in bigotry. Bigotry also works on a base of fear and suspicion of those who appear different. Ultimately people are the same wherever you go. At that time very few Australians travelled and had little exposure to different cultures so it was a fertile bed to instil those fear based 'values'.

Interestingly I have been watching SBS's 'The Face of America' which explores US immigration history through a number of different well known US citizens of varying backgrounds. The US was certainly ahead of Australia in it's immigration policies but still held onto the same prejudices where Asian immigrants could not seek citizenship for some time while white and black applicants faced no obstacles.

Time, generational change and integration of different cultures aids in reducing bigotry. I think this would have happened over time with or without those leaders given technological advancements that increased global information sharing and opportunities for travel.

pelican, the people I know can't be 'most Australians'.
Most Australians (at least the White ones) would prefer that we did not import the unwanted dross from third world destinations and dangerous fudamentalist regimes. Not to mention the current wave of savages from East Africa.
It's just that 'most Australians' are scared to voice their true opinions for fear of foaming-mouthed lefties screaming 'racists!'.
Call me what you like, I don't care.

Documentaries can be a major disservice to issues of public importance, and this has been one such disservice. There is a problem common to most documentaries and to many analysts; for some inexplicable reason too many people believe in "they", it's easy to say "they" did this and knew that. But the truth is that every government, nation, church, and even corporation is a collection of people with dissipate knowledge, motives, and abilities.

Documentaries about Indonesia talk about the public's attitude as if that had anything to do with Jakarta's decisions; likewise Washington's decisions are largely the product of corporations and the advice turned out from US universities after decades of private funding of their schools. In 19th century Australia, most Europeans were NOT English; Europe was plagued with the aftermath of Napoleon and crop failures, many people came to Australia seeking a chance at being self sufficient. Unlike the general population, the colonial administration was British and that ruling class created the disproportionate British and Church influence in Australia in the 20th century. How dare people accuse my ancestors of loving the English, dozens of ancestors from Bohemia to Germany, even some from Scotland and Ireland.

Henry Parkes had a English voice but he was willing to talk with the non-English and took to the public stage. The documentary also forgets that in 1901 much of the Aboriginal population was out of reach, there was no feasible way for the people to know what the white fellows were doing or to register to vote; there was a practical problem and that real issue gave strength for members of the ruling elite who wanted to exclude the indigenous vote.

The White Australia Policy and other policies were products of an elite class of people debating their dissipate ambitions with their dissipate abilities. While we should have our own opinions about those policies, there is questionable wisdom in accusing the public and individuals of a hundred yeas ago of things.

There's no need, Austin Powerless.

>>Call me what you like, I don't care<<

You already know what you are.

The only unfortunate aspect is that you are proud of it.