Australia adopts a Judeo-Christian Policy instead of White Australia Policy?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheCrucible

Banned
So let's say that instead of the White Australia policy Australia adopts a Judeo Christian policy in its inception. As a result instead of allowing only Northern and Western Europeans Australia allows anyone to come as as long as they are of:

  • Fluent in English
  • Follow a Jewish or Christian Faith
 
Last edited:
This is solidly c19. Probably before the defeat of the squatocracy as a latent Gentry in NSW/Tas. So an 1820s or prior pod.

Irish were second class citizens until the 1960s for racial and religious and class and political reasons. And they were British even if traitorous.

Reentangling a genocide against Kanaka and a Chinese exclusion clause which allows Central Europeans to be fucked with, without invoking a Protestant CoE Britishness policy will need a deeper backtrack than 1901.

Connell and Irving’s textbook obvs. “Class structure…”
 
So let's say that instead of the White Australia policy Australia adopts a Judo Christian policy in its inception. As a result instead of allowing only Northern and Western Europeans Australia allows anyone to come as as long as they are of:

  • Fluent in English
  • Follow a Jewish or Christian Faith

To do this, you would have to butterfly away the anti-Asian sentiment that had built up in Australia pre-Federation, such as during the Gold Rush, or maybe have different Christian, but non-white countries colonize Australia and these people can mix and form their own national identity based upon Christianity. The White Australia Policy was deemed so important to Australia's national security that the government was prepared to break away from the British Empire just so they could ban all Asians form the country, including from Britain's then-ally, Japan.
 
I'm not going to get into the issue of the exact etymology of 'Judeo-Christian', suffice to say its current popularity is a post-WW2 phenomenon. It's very unlikely that many members of the Commonwealth parliament or bureaucracy were familiar with this concept in 1901.

Also, yeah, our settler-derived society was institutionally racist against, as OPer notes, anyone from Western and Northern Europe, for multiple reasons stemming from the grim complexity of 19th century nation building. See Western Canada and the United States for pretty much the same thing.

Section 116 Chapter V Oz Constitution said:
Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

It's important to note that the drafters of that document were all clamouring to claim the edge in our particular liberal consensus, hence the above clause. It passed with almost no dissent, IIRC.

Perhaps more importantly, the power to deal with immigrants on the basis of their 'racial alien' status also passed easily, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_51(xxvi)_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia
 
I'm not going to get into the issue of the exact etymology of 'Judeo-Christian', suffice to say its current popularity is a post-WW2 phenomenon. It's very unlikely that many members of the Commonwealth parliament or bureaucracy were familiar with this concept in 1901.

Also, yeah, our settler-derived society was institutionally racist against, as OPer notes, anyone from Western and Northern Europe, for multiple reasons stemming from the grim complexity of 19th century nation building. See Western Canada and the United States for pretty much the same thing.



It's important to note that the drafters of that document were all clamouring to claim the edge in our particular liberal consensus, hence the above clause. It passed with almost no dissent, IIRC.

Perhaps more importantly, the power to deal with immigrants on the basis of their 'racial alien' status also passed easily, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_51(xxvi)_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia
Isn't it strange how there was no bill of rights?
 
I know it's an alternate of Judeo Christian but the thread title gives me mental images of immigrants having to successfully do a ippon seoi nage or other throws to be let in.
 
Isn't it strange how there was no bill of rights?

Apparently, the majority of the delegates at the 1898 Constitutional Convention believed the rights of the people would be sufficiently protected by the Parliamentary system and the independent judiciary. Though, I agree with you, the decision not to add a Bill of Rights was a stupid one. I don't want to get into Current Politics, but let's just say the parameters of what counts as 'free speech' is a big issue in Australia today.

It's gets even stranger when you realize that even Britain has a Bill of Rights along with other Acts that make up it's officially non-existent Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
 

I heard it somewhere in a documentary a few years ago, which I can't find now. All I remember is that some members of Parliament were seriously floating the idea of Australia breaking away from Britain over the White Australia Policy. Hopefully, someone can back me up.
 
I'm not going to get into the issue of the exact etymology of 'Judeo-Christian', suffice to say its current popularity is a post-WW2 phenomenon. It's very unlikely that many members of the Commonwealth parliament or bureaucracy were familiar with this concept in 1901.

Was going to say the same thing - ‘Judeo-Christian’ as a phrase to describe “the West” (both very vague terms) is very Cold War and colored by perspectives of that originated after the Second World War. This would be an alien idea at the inception of Australia.
 
Question...

Did the White Australia Policy explicitly state that you had to have white skin? Or did it just stipulate that immigrants had to come from white-majority countries? (IOW, for the latter, a Chinese-Canadian would technically be allowed to move to Australia, because most Canadians are white.)
 
Question...

Did the White Australia Policy explicitly state that you had to have white skin? Or did it just stipulate that immigrants had to come from white-majority countries? (IOW, for the latter, a Chinese-Canadian would technically be allowed to move to Australia, because most Canadians are white.)

The Immigration Restriction Act banned those with infectious diseases and criminal records from entering Australia. it also granted automatic entry to members of the Royal Navy and the British Army, former residents of Australia, family members of permitted immigrants, etc.

Where it gets vicious is that in order to enter Australia, you had to pass a 50-word dictation test 'in a European language'. There was no definition for 'European language' in the Act and it was often given based purely on the immigrant's race. In other words, the test was rigged so that many people would fail the test. Out of the 805 times it was administered between 1902-08, 46 people passed. When it was administered up to 554 times between 1904-09, only six people passed. After 1909, no one passed the Dictation Test.

Also, the government used the test as a excuse to block people they considered politically unreliable. This caused a controversy when a Jewish political activist named Egon Kisch was temporarily excluded from entry because he wrote his test in Scottish Gaelic. The High Court had to get involved and say Kisch was allowed into the country.
 

TheCrucible

Banned
The Immigration Restriction Act banned those with infectious diseases and criminal records from entering Australia. it also granted automatic entry to members of the Royal Navy and the British Army, former residents of Australia, family members of permitted immigrants, etc.

Where it gets vicious is that in order to enter Australia, you had to pass a 50-word dictation test 'in a European language'. There was no definition for 'European language' in the Act and it was often given based purely on the immigrant's race. In other words, the test was rigged so that many people would fail the test. Out of the 805 times it was administered between 1902-08, 46 people passed. When it was administered up to 554 times between 1904-09, only six people passed. After 1909, no one passed the Dictation Test.

Also, the government used the test as a excuse to block people they considered politically unreliable. This caused a controversy when a Jewish political activist named Egon Kisch was temporarily excluded from entry because he wrote his test in Scottish Gaelic. The High Court had to get involved and say Kisch was allowed into the country.

Yeah. Let's be honest. Australia is one of the most racist developed nations in the world despite pretending otherwise sometimes. I've lived in multiple countries and, to my experience, the only place more racist has been the American south.

While Australians love to brag about how their not but are incredibly two face about it by then saying very racist remarks when your not there and voting in racist politicians.
 
"Judeo-Christian" as a favored ethnic group is a construct of postwar white supremacy, borne of the need to pretend white supremacy is not anti-Semitic. Before the Holocaust made overt anti-Semitism unacceptable in the Western world, the only people who talked about Judeo-Christian anything were a handful of intellectuals.

Somewhat tellingly, the US, which did favor Northern and Western Europe over Southern and Eastern Europe in its immigration law, passed an amendment establishing a separate quota for Jews to prevent German Jews from getting in using the generous German quota.
 
Yeah. Let's be honest. Australia is one of the most racist developed nations in the world despite pretending otherwise sometimes. I've lived in multiple countries and, to my experience, the only place more racist has been the American south.

While Australians love to brag about how their not but are incredibly two face about it by then saying very racist remarks when your not there and voting in racist politicians.

That's more of a problem in rural areas like Queensland. Just so you know, I live in New South Wales and I'm very left-leaning. Just like in the American South, I guess you can say there is a disconnect between the metropolitan areas like Sydney and those who live on farms like in Queensland. This disconnect has allowed groups like One Nation to find a potent support base.

As for Australia supposedly being a racist country, look at it this way, we got rid of our segregation laws without being pushed to the precipice of civil war. Looking at you, South Africa.
 

TheCrucible

Banned
That's more of a problem in rural areas like Queensland. Just so you know, I live in New South Wales and I'm very left-leaning. Just like in the American South, I guess you can say there is a disconnect between the metropolitan areas like Sydney and those who live on farms like in Queensland. This disconnect has allowed groups like One Nation to find a potent support base.

As for Australia supposedly being a racist country, look at it this way, we got rid of our segregation laws without being pushed to the precipice of civil war. Looking at you, South Africa.

That's not a good thing to be happy about about. South Africa is horrible predominately because of how it used Black Labor to build itself before dismantling and looting the nation. Furthermore South Africa isn't even a developed nation so it don't here.
 
there is a disconnect between the metropolitan areas like Sydney
Where people play “spot the Aussie” while making Asian jokes (within 1 km of GPO Btw) and country areas where refugee families are welcomed into the community.

Also laws. Yeah we got rid of the laws. Pretty much only the laws.
 
The Immigration Restriction Act banned those with infectious diseases and criminal records from entering Australia. it also granted automatic entry to members of the Royal Navy and the British Army, former residents of Australia, family members of permitted immigrants, etc.

Where it gets vicious is that in order to enter Australia, you had to pass a 50-word dictation test 'in a European language'. There was no definition for 'European language' in the Act and it was often given based purely on the immigrant's race. In other words, the test was rigged so that many people would fail the test. Out of the 805 times it was administered between 1902-08, 46 people passed. When it was administered up to 554 times between 1904-09, only six people passed. After 1909, no one passed the Dictation Test.

Also, the government used the test as a excuse to block people they considered politically unreliable. This caused a controversy when a Jewish political activist named Egon Kisch was temporarily excluded from entry because he wrote his test in Scottish Gaelic. The High Court had to get involved and say Kisch was allowed into the country.

Nathan:

Very informative post. Thanks.
 
That's more of a problem in rural areas like Queensland. Just so you know, I live in New South Wales and I'm very left-leaning. Just like in the American South, I guess you can say there is a disconnect between the metropolitan areas like Sydney and those who live on farms like in Queensland. This disconnect has allowed groups like One Nation to find a potent support base.
Far to broad a brush (and without getting into chat territory), but there’s just as much difference between Sydney’s affluent, progressive eastern suburbs and the working/immigrant (and socially conservative) western suburbs as there is between regional and metropolitan demographics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top