Australian Racism And Egalitarianism Misconstrued

To the editors:



As a history concentrator, Bede A. Moore should have a close interest in historical accuracy. In his comment “Advance Australia Fair?” (Dec. 12) he states that “the very first piece of legislation passed after Australia’s federation in 1901 was the Immigration Retriction Act.” No doubt he read this in one or more secondary sources—it is a claim often made by Australians who like history to fit neatly and to fuel their retrospective moral indignation (without looking at the primary sources). It is true that the Immigration Restriction Act was passed early in 1901, but it was, in fact the 17th act, not the first!

Color-based immigration restrictions did not continue until 1973. They were first lifted in the late 1960s, under Prime Minister Harold Holt, and the process was completed by Edward Gough Whitlam’s Labor government.

It’s also worth pointing out that, while racism is far from absent in Australian life today, a beach riot between gangs of Lebanese and non-Lebanese youths does not amount to evidence of national racism or even racism per se. Cultural hostilities (on both sides) and ugly displays of nationalism, sure, but Moore draws a long bow to relate this to a history of color-based immigration policies.

Australia’s “ideal of egalitarianism” lies in its history of economic and social policy, in its protection of working conditions and wages, and in its absence of strong cultural measures of class. None of this has been perfect or flawless, but compared to many other countries, Australia has measured up well. If myths about perfect egalitarianism should be discarded, so should myths about rampant racism—not to mention kangaroos and shrimps on the barbie!



HELEN IRVING

December 12, 2005

The writer is visiting professor of Australian studies at Harvard Law School.