Talk:White Australia policy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Fill with whites, lest we be filled with yellows"[edit]

It is difficult from the context to determine whether this statement is the writers interpretation or an actual slogan. Could someone check this (202.7.183.130 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The end of the WAP[edit]

It would be nice to see a bit of expansion on how Whitlam and Dunstan lobbied the Labor federal executive in to passing various motions to change the party's position on different aspects of the issue. Timeshift (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The commonly held belief is that Whitlam ended the WAP. Despite that, there are some who will debate it on and on. Fraser also likes to claim credit for ending the WAP. But did it end? Even recently, government Ministers were trying to limit immigration from African countries. What is that, if it is not a white Australia policy? Lester 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Australia is now a melting pot. Timeshift (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Australia is a country not an instrument for making chocolate, etc. OzWoden (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance???[edit]

In the latter section of the article there exists the following paragraph:

In 2007, the Howard Government introduced a citizenship test to include a tougher English language test, and a test on "Australian" values. The actual questions of such citizenship test have not been publicly released, and its future is in question given the ALP victory in the 2007 election.

Pray tell, what is the relevance of a language test or of a 'values' test (which even I agree is silly, but thats not the point) with the supposed "White Australia policy"? Before the lefties respond, consider this, non-white people speaka the English too.

If a sufficient reason is not given and/or if the paragraph is not amended to make it relevant to the article I will delete it. OzWoden (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to challenge the relevance of the statement "Though the White Australia policy, which had segregated Aborigines, no longer exists, their poor socio-economic conditions typically leave them segregated". This implies that a major contribution to - or indeed the main reason for - the poor socio-economic conditions of aboriginal Australians is the WAP. This is very dubious at best and profoundly misleading at worst. Unless I see a strong argument in favour I propose to delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.134.1 (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1975 or 1985?[edit]

The opening sentence says that the policy (or series of policies) ran until 1985, but the "closing date" is taken in the rest of the article (and generally elsewhere) as the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. I believe 1985 is just a (very misleading) typo, so if I don't hear back from anyone who thinks otherwise I will correct it. paxman (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Prasad[edit]

Why is there no mention of this girl? My understanding is that her case and the publicity surrounding it were significant in the demise of the WAP. But I can find no mention of her here. Do I misunderstand her significance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.249 (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why put "non-white" in inverted commas?[edit]

Take an example - Southern Italians and Greeks were "whites" (albeit second rate ones in some people's eyes) - but Turks and Iranians were "non whites" - even if their skins were on the the whole just as fair if not fairer. "Non White" , especially in this context, is a silly, nasty, petty little concept that is not even consistent or unambiguous by its own twisted lights. It needs to be in "scare" quotes - if only to indicate that we are reporting its use but not endorsing it. OK? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor reference for Gold Rush section/ Unsubstantiated arguments[edit]

The reference cited for the second paragraph of the gold rush section does not support the assertions made in that paragraph. The article by Lockwood argues, as the title suggests, that the development of the White Australia politics in the lead up to federation resulted from the needs of British imperialism---i.e. that it was consciously developed by leading figures in the British imperial ruling class in order to develop a state that would play a role that served the interests of the British empire. The argument of the paragraph is that tensions on the gold fields led to the development of White Australia politics. But the article is largely concerned with the period before the gold rush, and its central focus is not tension between miners of different backgrounds, but rather of the development of racist colonial policy amongst the colonial and metropolitan elite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slmiller6 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible perceived bias[edit]

In the article specifically addressing Australia's "White Australia Policy" there would seem to be two visual errors - or possible confusions - or merely leanings.

1. A photograph - which it is acknowledged is headed "Part of a Series" - shows a sign:

- Black and White photograph of a sign identifying a "colored waiting room" -

Apart from spelling "colored" incorrectly for Australia it represents the cultural environment of the U.S. and not the subject of the article - Australia.

This represents Australia less than accurately.

2. The photograph of the badge at the top of the page is not placed in any context:

- bronze medallion depicting a map of Australia with "White Australia" embossed -

There is no source for the badge - it is unknown if this badge was issued by the Government, a political party, a private citizen or was bestowed for certain activities. Is it an official emblem, something Government sanctioned or not?

For 1908 I would expect to be told who issued the badge, who it was designed for and if it had any official status in Australia and if it was widely worn at the time - numbers minted would be a bonus. As it stands it is a marginally relevant piece of ephemera.


Gordon Evans ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordondouglas1 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as for the American photo, it's says this article is part of an international series. For the badge: I added some context: thumb|200px This badge from 1910 was produced by the Australian Natives' Association, comprising Australian-born whites. Prime Minister Alfred Deakin was a member. It shows the use of the slogan "White Australia" at that time. See (http://museumvictoria.com.au/learning-federation/white-australia/medal---australia-for-australians/ Museum Victoria description)]] Rjensen (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wut?[edit]

Australian government policy from earlier years has been claimed[who?] to be the original impetus for the apartheid system in South Africa.

The Afrikanner people had always been racially aware since before Australia had been settled. Australia's policy had nothing in common with apartheid, least of all because it's name wasn't a giant contradiction. Remove this stupid, biased claim.Winston S Smith (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on White Australia policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is all wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.161.187 (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on White Australia policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preference to "Northern" Europeans[edit]

In our initial defining sentence best to keep it to "European" rather than "Northern European". People from Southern and Eastern Europe have indeed been subject to varying degrees of prejudice and discrimination in Australia (as have migrants in general, even in some cases those from Britain, for that matter) but all of this is very peripheral indeed to the subject of this article, which refers to a specific, official government policy relating to the immigration of people seen as "non-white". If it were to be expanded to cover the general subject of "xenophobia in Australia" it would be very much longer - quite apart from being rather meaningless anyway - like they don't have xenophobia elsewhere? (If only!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on White Australia policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very unpleasant subject![edit]

But it won't just go away if we smother it with requests for further citations of matter already cited - especially in the lead section, which should not need additional references at all if it is a summary of an already well cited article. Aggressive, POV tagging defeats the object of the "cn" tag, which is not to express disapproval of the subject, but to improve the accuracy of the article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the lead section to long?[edit]

A totally unrelated question might be that some of the lead section could go - some of it is strictly off-topic! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

Please remove the link 3 or update it :

"Fact Sheet – Abolition of the 'White Australia' Policy". Australian Immigration. Commonwealth of Australia, National Communications Branch, Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Retrieved 27 March 2013. Willard, Myra (11 April 1967). "History of the White Australia Policy to 1920".

Link is dead and dates vary from a language to another, who's right ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.63.134.26 (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of New Zealand Maori - they were unique in having the same immigration and voting rites as NZ white people. An explanation of why might be interesting.[edit]

Some of this should be included from [NZ Maori - Avoiding the White Australia Policy, 1902–1950s|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_Australians#Avoiding_the_White_Australia_Policy,_1902%E2%80%931950s]]

″Māori generally benefited from the same immigration and voting rights as white New Zealanders in Australia, making them a notable exception to the White Australia policy. In 1902, with the Commonwealth Franchise Act, Māori residents in Australia were granted the right to vote, a right denied to Indigenous Australians. During that same period, their right to settle in Australia was facilitated by their shared status as British subjects.[9] The Australian government granted equal rights to Māori only reluctantly. In 1905, the New Zealand government made a formal complaint about the exclusion of two Māori shearers, after which the Australian government changed its customs regulations to allow Māori to freely enter the country. Other Pacific Islanders were still subject to the White Australia policy.[10]"

This explanation seems generalised and incomplete when compared to other detail explanations.

Bob-fred01 (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Bob-fred01[reply]

Thank you, Bob-fred01, this is useful info. For now I have just copied the same paragraph into this article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

relevance of association to australia far right politics portal[edit]

the white australia policy had support across the political spectrum in its day. While the policy is obviously relevant to a discussion of the history of white or anglo identity politics, it is not specific to far right australian politics, in fact it could just as readily be linked to an Australian socialism portal. Also such policies were common internationally and included broader measures such as poll taxes or reduced rights for foreigners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.34.43 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume this more relates to present-day advocates of restricting non-white immigration who would almost all be far right. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such aspirations are distinct from a historical governing instrument. The historical xenophobic policies of governments generally don't get their own link to a far right politics portal: New Zealand head tax, Chinese head tax in Canada, Sakoku, Naturalization Act of 1790

My two cents on the "policy also didn't accept immigrants from Italy" part[edit]

I make my excuses in advance if this posts is going to be not very formal, It is my first time making a discussion on wikipedia.

To me, personally, It doesn't make sense to say that Italians where affected from this policy, considering that in the same web page It also says that Australia accepted many migrants from Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia. If this is an allegory of the new belief of the recent years that "some europeans weren't considered white", I have to inform you that that was never the case, at least according to the corresponding governments in that time. For example, Italians in the US where allowed of things that people that came from asia weren't and were generally free, somethimes they just had to change their name and surname to be accepted in higher quality jobs with ease. Discrimination was absolutely there, due to them being neither protestant and anglo-saxon, but It wasn't on a race-based thing, but definitedly on a xenophobic one. Also, to be, let's say, not very formal with what I'm about to say, the pages of the source links seems like they were written in a victimistic note and not an objective one (many such cases), and that this whole "some europeans weren't considered white" Is, to me, a mystification of actual history made either by supremacists, or by people who think It's cool and counter-intuitive, or people that desperatedly want to be oppressed. 79.56.62.13 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple inline credible sources supporting the text. That’s what we use here. It’s not open to your individual interpretation. Hy Brasil (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_Australia_policy&oldid=1214095698"