John Quiggin

OK, John, thanks for the opportunity. I'm not going to defend Keith Windschuttle's book, because I haven't read it. However, it seems you are happy to attack it without doing so - if you have in fact read the book, there is no indication of that in your post.

I do take issue, though, with your analysis of the article in the Australian. You say that "it seems likely that WIndschuttle's defence is that White Australia was not premised on racial superiority, but on the doctrine of "separate but equal" treatment used in the case of Plessy vs Ferguson to defend the Jim Crow laws of the American South and, in its Afrikaans form, as the theoretical basis for apartheid (separate development)." What the article actually says is that "Windschuttle's thesis is that until the 1950s Australian historians held a much more benign view of the purposes and origins of the policy than they do today. They saw it as an attempt by politicians to preserve social harmony, and by a fledgling trade union movement to keep cheap labour out of the country." Further, the article sums up the policy by saying that it "aimed to restrict non-European migration by requiring all immigrants to pass a dictation test in a European language". Any number of educated Indians or West Indians would have had no difficulty in passing such a test.

As for the quote you attribute to Windschuttle (which doesn't appear in the article you referenced)that the policy was a "rational and, in a number of ways, progressive, product of its times", that is certainly an arguable interpretation of it. The thesis that substantial immigration of people from very different ethnic or cultural backgrounds is likely to lead to social unrest hasn't exactly been discredited in recent times. I need only to mention Toxteth and Brixton in the UK, and the current difficulties a number of European countries are experiencing with their Muslim minorities, to make that clear.

You also claim that the policy "openly defined itself in terms of skin colour". While I am in no doubt that the policy was and is commonly referred to as the White Australia Policy, that is a different matter from it being officially designated as such. Do you have any source for that claim?

Finally, although I am sure that some (perhaps many) of those in favour of the White Australia Policy were racist (and no doubt some of them are still with us and are still racist) this does not mean that the architects of the policy were, nor does it mean that those in government who supported it subsequently all were. Nor does it mean that Keith Windschuttle is. If you are going to malign someone with the racist tag, I think you are going to have to present more substantive evidence than you have so far.

what Alex said.

I might add that I do think at times Windschuttle goes over the top like the very people he criticises and who criticise him.

Modern Australian racist groups like the Australian Nationalist Movement, the White Pride Coalition and the Patriotic Youth League also argue in favour of a "separate but equal" races. I wonder if Windschuttle will put his money where his mouth is and pay the membership fee?

Further to my last post, if the quotes attributed to them in Henry Reynolds' book North of Capricorn are accurate, it would seem that at least our first four prime ministers (Barton, Deakin, Watson and Reid) were in fact racist. See this review of Reynolds' book

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/26/1064083186575.html

However, it seems that Windschuttle set out to write his own review of Reynolds' book, but ended up writing his own. So there may be a little more to it than that.

Alex,

You have to be a member of the KKK (or such) to be racist?

Most racists don't consider themselves as such, their thinking and writing on the topic being rationalisation of underlying emotional responses. If you've heard Windschuttle speak, as opposed to reading him, you'll get my drift.

As for your "european language" point, remember that Gaelic is a european language -- a point not lost on our immigration department in the 1950s.

PS, lest anyone think I am being precious by qualifying my reference to Henry Reynolds' quotes from our first four Prime Ministers, he does not have an unblemished track record in this respect. See "Historian admits misquoting Governor Arthur over Aboriginal Attacks"

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/29/1038386313878.html

As a further comment, it is helpful to think a bit about how history should be approached. I found Helen Irving's comments in the SMH collection of articles, "Footnotes to a War" helpful (link at the bottom of this post).

To quote Helen, "Whose perspective, then, should be conveyed? This is the first of the real battles in the "history wars". Should readers know how it felt to be an Aborigine going about daily life, only to see their world turned upside down by British settlers? Or should we understand the officials who made the decisions about settlement? Or the convicts, or the wives? Should the historian base their choice on a scale of sympathy for the subjects of history?

"We should try to understand all, and condemn none. The historian's proper role is to step into the shoes of the past, to explain what people thought they were doing. Historians should approach their material with an open mind. They should not start by asking: what would I have done? It is absurd to chastise the past for failing to live up to our standards. The historian's function, as Carr concluded, "is neither to love the past nor to emancipate himself from the past, but to master and understand it as the key to the understanding of the present"."

Oops, forgot the link. Here it is

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336875054.html

Alan, I don't think you have to be a member of the KKK to be a racist. Nor is it particularly sensible for you to suggest that I might think this. My point is simply that if Pr Q wants to label Keith Windschuttle as a racist, he ought to muster more substantive evidence than he has in his original post. Hardly that controversial, I would have thought.

To be strictly accurate, Pr Q doesn't label Windschuttle as a racist, merely as "a consistent apologist for racism, happy to use racist arguments in support of his cause". However, my substantive point still stands.

Alan, re your reference to the use of a test in Gaelic as a tool by the immigration department to weed out those they saw as undesirable applicants, this was clearly racist in many instances. (In others, those seen as "undesirable" may have been white, but considered inappropriate immigrants for other reasons). The test per se was not racist, its application frequently was.

Without finding out precisely what KW thinks about white Australia and racism I cannot form an opinion about this issue. However if he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick on this issue that will not mean that people need to revise their opinion of anything else he has done.

He has written usefully about the corruption of historical studies in The Killing of History. His work on Tasmania was mainly concerned with correcting errors in scholarship and was not a defence of any crimes that were committed against the indegenous population. Under the malign influence of the late David Stove he completely screwed up on the philosophy of science and condemned Karl Popper as an irrationlalist, practicallyl a capital offence in my view:) And so it goes, you have to take each issue on its own merits.

As for regarding apartheid in South African as a separate but equal strategy, give me a break! Bill Hutt wrote a comprehesive account of the origins, evolution and approaching end game of the South African situation up to 1964. There was nothing equal or even workable about the idea of consigning the blacks to their own autonomous homelands. The white economy would have collapsed without black labour and the blacks would have been crammed into a non-viable fraction of the land area. The situation evolved through an unholy alliance of white trade unions (to keep the black labourers in their place) and religious-racist Africaaners (to keep all the blacks and coloured folk in their place). Much of Hutt's booklet on this topic is on line in the Revivalist Four section of my website.

If I recall correctly, from what I have heard on ABC radio a few years ago, the dictation test was administered rather strictly on Asians. The "any European language" was based on the choice of the Immigration officer, and not the choice of the person being tested. So you could be pulled up and be asked to dictate in French, German or any European language.

Apparently, the test only failed a minority of Asians in it's first year of inception, until the officers were taught the intent of the test. In the subsequent years, Asians weren't so lucky, and most failed and were deported.

Alex,

By asking "You have to be a member of the KKK (or such) to be racist?" I did not accuse anyone, you included.

The trouble with any debate about racism is that lots of nice decent luke-warm racists consider the charge to be one rung lower than one of murder.

Ironically, those who identify racism in its luke-warm (but socially pervasive and thus harmful) form then get labelled by luke-warm racists as policially correct zealots when all they are doing is perceiving a mild culturally-induced phobia and/or over-zealous concern for the nation's reputation
in otherwise mostly estimable individuals.

Then there's a third kind of luke-ward racism well identified by the longest-lasting rationale (also Windschuttle's I gather) for the white Australia policy -- the one which maintained that racism was a necessary means to a socio-ecomonic end.

Some would maintain that this third kind of racism is not racism at all because it just happens to be a particular means to a socio-ecomonic end morally indistinguishable from some other kind of injurious means. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Big problem of conflation of motives and effects has seeped into this discussion.

The Constitution instituted the so-called "race power" granting Parliament power to make laws with respect to: "The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws."

This provision was overtly and proudly racist in conception.

The Immigration Act of 1901, which introduced the Dictation Test was covertly but proudly racist in conception. The linguistic test replaced a possibly preferred "colour swatch" test (not its real name) because the British Government objected to the explicit racist sentiments dominant in its southern dominion. The British were at that time negotiating a treaty with the Imperial Japanese government. Overtly racist principles expressed in legislation threatened to derail these diplomatic developments. Attorney General W. M. Hughes complied with British suggestions that he "tone it down a bit."

Until the 1960s very few non-whites attempted to migrate to Australia. The great diaspora of the Third World had hardly started and those who did have a mind to come to Australia were probably astute enough to know that they weren't welcome. Somewhere in the Commonwealth Year Book, which I don't have to hand at the moment, there are statistics about the administration of the Dictation Test. My memory is that it was administered surprisingly infrequently, but with telling effect on the occasional unwelcome intending immigrant.

Therefore, Australian authorities were not required to be actively racist very often. Like everything else, cruelty requires practice.

Many who remember the 1960s may recall that the Colombo plan provided novel opportunities for the practice of racist callousness. There were several cases of Indian and Ceylonese (as the were known then) who had settled and married yet were hustled out of the country under the "race powers" provisions.

Australian official racism until the 1960s therefore lacked not motive, but opportunity,

Interestingly, the 1967 referendum that was supposed to remove constitutional racism against Aborigines did not. In fact, the amendment, supported by over 90% of perhaps only temporarily liberal-minded Australians in fact made Aborigines (those not living on commonwealth territory) subject for the first time to the still existant "race powers",

In the early months of the first Howard Government I recall Senator Mellon, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, musing out loud in Parliament over whether it might be politic to pass special legislation under the "race powers" provision to annul certain unwelcome aspects of Native Title.

It didn't happen, of course. It was unnecessary. The Howard Government lacked the motive but not the opportunity to find a new use for the still existant "race-powers" provision of our constitution.

The author of a book that no-one has read is condemned out of hand for his support of apartheid and Jim Crow laws therein (which may or may not be the case) on the basis of a brief 'review' in the SMH that looks to me to be based on a phone interview with the author rather than any analysis of the work in question. This post might be premature.

Alan, I think you raise an important issue that needs to be considered further. Is it indeed "racism" (whether of the luke warm or any other variety) to take into account the likelihood of subsequent social upheaval when considering who should and who should not be allowed to immigrate to our country? If it is, does that mean we let anybody in and then worry about dealing with the consequences later? What I'm concerned about is that it is all too easy to simply label a view you disagree with as "racism" or "latent racism" rather than presenting a substantive critique and an alternative approach.

Q -- your blog articles are becoming more biased.

Somebody mentions "luck-warm" racism. Interesting comment. You missed one form of racism -- affirmative action. This might be based on a recognition of previous wrongs. Or it may be based on an assumption of inferiority which needs to be compensated for. Mostly both I think. Either way -- whether it is good or bad -- it is racism.

And just to stir the pot some more... I will say the "unsayable". I think there may well be differences between different races. Eeeekkk! Quickly -- somebody pass me a white hood and a shotgun.

If these things are worth examining at all, which they are this time, they should be tested on the basis of the facts not the motives (except to the extent that the fact of the existence of the motives is at issue - but Windschuttle's motives aren't like that). You are entitled to see whether it's worth looking deeper on the basis of the author's track record, but you already settled that question. The reason the facts count and not the motives is, even devout liars can tell the truth if it suits them. Consider what Goebbels did with the propaganda material of Katyn.

Don't forget that not all malice is of the same detailed nature. It is quite possible that people matched the old joke, "I'm not prejudiced, I hate everybody." After all, much of this sort of thing was driven by fear of personal competition and the racism wasn't colour-oriented; my mother recalled London boarding houses with signs saying "no blacks or Irish", the point used in a Mel Brooks line in Blazing Saddles: "All right, we'll take the chinks and we'll take the niggers, but we won't take the Irish."

Also, much personal hatred is driven by people rationalising their actions to stay clean with their own consciences, not something that drives their actions to begin with. It is quite possible that Australian racism sprang from self justification once the policy's impact was seen to fall primarily on our duskier brethren, but that it really started as a different selfish thing.

And of course many measures were adapted to work outside their original intention, the way the USA uses tax laws to achieve federal bans on cannabis. (They applied a tax but never issued any tax stamps or forms, except library reference copies, so all cannabis is illegal cannabis even though not all cannabis is illegal.) It's entirely possible that the original laws were framed in a way that could be used for one or another thing, then administered in a racist way - that not all the architects were racist but some were taken advantage of. It certainly matches political machinations, so we can't rule it out a priori.

The term White Australia policy was routinely used by public officials to describe the policy until 1942 when it was abandoned under British pressure because it was harming the war effort. The actual policy was repealed mainly during the 1960 with the last bits being scrapped in 1973. There are more details here

As regards prematurity, a phone interview endorsing the White Australia policy is entirely sufficient for me to condemn the person giving the interview. The fact that he has written a book on the subject is entirely irrelevant.

To clarify the point about the dictation test, its effect was to give the immigration authorities absolute power to exclude anyone they wanted, and this was exercised to exclude non-whites. Alex's claim that " Any number of educated Indians or West Indians would have had no difficulty in passing such a test." suggests that he has no knowledge of even the most basic aspects of the policy.

The quote from Windschuttle defending White Australia is here/

John's quite correct in noting that the intent of the language test was to allow officials to administer it in Basque, Gaelic or Finnish to exclude anyone at will (normally non-whites).

As to Windschuttle, even if he can demonstrate that historians had a different perspective in the 1950s, this would not be surprising. So what? His comments about elites in the 1890s are absurd and betray a total lack of historical context.

I suspect that he has become a media tart, popping up his head for more attention since his last salvo in the history wars ran out of steam.

"As regards prematurity, a phone interview endorsing the White Australia policy is entirely sufficient for me to condemn the person giving the interview. The fact that he has written a book on the subject is entirely irrelevant."

I might agree if you had been the interviewer. But, Deborah Snow was. We haven't heard from Windschuttle directly and no-one has read his book. All we know about is your interpretation of her interpretation. And on that point, I don't accept that her piece allows one to reasonably conclude that Windschuttle is an admirer of the the White Australia Policy, without further qualification. I think we need some context. Far from being 'totally irrelevant," I think that a perusal of what he's written might be fairly crucial in the circumstances.

No, that doesn't link to a publicly available quotation from the SMH; it's only accessible to subscribers.

But I would take the SMH with as large a pinch of salt as the Melbourne Age. I once caught the Age misrepresenting Howard's views on the republic issue, editing what he really said (which I was able to confirm separately). When they repeated it a few months later and I challenged them on it, they wrote back citing their own falsification as a supporting authority, and didn't have the grace to reply when I pointed out that the Australian had the part they had snipped out. (Oh, what was it? The Age cut Howard saying "Some people think that..." and misrepresented that he himself acknowledged that the monarchy was out of date.)

Anyhow, if I thought it was important enough to damn a man's reputation, I wouldn't use a quotation from a newspaper as an authority for the purpose.

Geoff, this seems a bit precious. The remarks I've attacked are presented as direct quotes from Windschuttle. It's possible that Deborah Snow has got them wrong, but it seems most unlikely to me. If they are misquotes, and his book is actually a critique of the White Australia policy, no doubt we'll find out soon enough.

If your suggestion is that I need to find out the specific grounds on which Windschuttle admires the White Australia policy, I disagree. The facts on the White Australia policy are well known, and there are no indications that Windschuttle has discovered any new ones. It was a racist policy, and defending it now is the action of a racist.

In any case, I don't see how this differs from any other post I or other bloggers write. When I criticise, say, a Gerard Henderson column, I disregard the possibility that the subeditor changed his words in some critical fashion. On the occasions when something like this happens, I'm happy to run a correction.

"I suspect that he has become a media tart, popping up his head for more attention since his last salvo in the history wars ran out of steam."

Possibly Mark, but the Snow piece is more likely to have been a pre-launch press interview (the publisher may well have done a press release) initiated by the SMH - whose views about Windschuttle are probably not as considered as John's :)

Re Windschuttle's defence of the WAP, I was interested to note this section in the Wikipedia article you linked to, John.

"The origin of the policy can be traced back to the 1850s when large numbers of Chinese immigrated to Australia during the gold rushes. The Anglo-Australian population resented Chinese who were undercutting white labour prices, and also disliked some Chinese cultural practises. There were several race riots. In response, the newly self-governing colonies introducing restrictions on Chinese immigration."

Seems to me that this backs Windschuttle's thesis that the WAP was introduced in the interests of harmony and to protect white fellas jobs.

Well - probably, Geoff - but you could argue that his writing another book (from the interview it seemed to have been done in haste) on a topic guarenteed to attract media attention has the same outcome. I thought he was labouring over the second volume of his history of how historians were wrong about dispossession...

Alex, no one's denying that the Labour Movement in particular pushed for the White Australia policy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries primarily to prevent wages being undercut. Naturally, this also intersected with Australian "nativism" and the Imperial ideology of a "white man's country". But Windschuttle is completely offbase with the spin he puts on it.

Do we really need another argument about terrible elites? It's ludicrous to suggest that this ridiculously misused term had the same connotation in the 1890s or for that matter, that union leaders, sufragettes and labour journalists were equivalent to the people whom Windschuttle now thinks are "PC elites" or whatever nonsense he's on about.

Apologies for the unmeasured tone of my contribution - Windschuttle always makes me extremely angry!

"The remarks I've attacked are presented as direct quotes from Windschuttle. It's possible that Deborah Snow has got them wrong, but it seems most unlikely to me."

JQ, that is just precisely what the Age so egregiously did in its quoting of Howard on the republic issue. From that stable's track record, you are not entitled to give it the benefit of the doubt by supposing it is giving a true and fair, let alone complete and in context, rendering. It picks and chooses - there is clear evidence of it.

Oh, and defending something - possibly for quite unrelated reasons that weren't connected to the original ones, or vice versa if it acquired later reasons - does not tar the defender with guilt by association. Or would you agree with Andrew Bolt that Terry Hicks' chain of association with Osama bin Laden means that he shouldn't be allowed a public platform? (Though I see quite other reasons why he shouldn't, that one strikes me as farcical.)

PML, so what's Windschuttle's motivation in defending White Australia? I imagine we'll start hearing about how wonderful assimilation was from him soon. I just can't see - albeit from the information presented in the story (which I greatly doubt has misquoted him) - what contribution to historical knowledge his book could make on the strength of what he - the author - has said about it.

It really is a very weak argument to suggest that if occasionally a journalist misquotes someone, we shouldn't discuss anything in the media until it's verified - by whom, anyway?

And Windschuttle, in advancing what he calls his "broad agenda" is making a category error typical of the Murdoch press by eliding multiculturalism and policy towards Indigenous Australians. Maybe Janet Albrechtsen agrees? I imagine she'll have an op-ed piece lauding his courage etc.

At least this disgraceful mob have seemingly moved on from claiming that they're silenced by "pc police" now that they occupy so much public space in the media. So what we get instead is another dose of turgid attacks on the "60s generation". Oh, and nonsense about elites.

How long do we have to put up with these ludicrous "culture wars"?

It's interesting to note that Snow describes Windschuttle as a "journalist turned historian". Windschuttle used to lecture in media studies (back when he was an evil lefty). He has never been a professional historian.

And what does his latest "contribution" say about his much lauded defence of academic standards, truth etc.

God, it would be boring if it wasn't so offensive.

How does his crud advance the national debate one iota?

"...have seemingly moved on from claiming that they're silenced by "pc police" ...."

Yes, there's a refreshing silence about their claims they're been silenced.

"So what we get instead is another dose of turgid attacks on the "60s generation". Oh, and nonsense about elites."

They missed on the sex and drugs back then and now they're bitter. Yes OK, most of the rightsentelligentsia now weren't around that then. But there's still a distinct Stalinist puritanical streak about them - ie: "Having fun weakens our national will".

Plus it's so easy to blame the past when yer trying to reframe the present for what yer think the future should be.

And having a regular opinion column in the national newspaper is about elite as it gets.

I'm not equipped to debate the merits of the black armband vs. white blindfold history of Australia. However I'd just note that whenever Westerners encountered indigenous races form the early 18th century onwards, we always won, militarily, socially, economically, demographically etc. How can it hurt to be gracious about it?

"God, it would be boring if it wasn't so offensive."
I disagree there Mark B. It's boring 'cos it's offensive.

Has Pr Q read Windschuttle's latest book? I am betting not. Before being branded a racist his work deserves a thorough inquiry.

Windschuttle appears to be arguing in favour of the White Australia Policy (WAP), which was an immigration policy based on skin colour and is presumptively racist. Pr Q is therefore correct to state that Windschuttle cant complain too indiginantly if he gets tarred with the same brush that is used on Afrikaaners and Jim Crow.

The main defect in Pr Q criticism of Winschuttle's politics is the usual argumentum ad hominum/ideologicum one: conflating professional with the personal and political defects. Perhaps Windschuttle is a Bad Man or supports Bad Causes. Is his work a Bad Job? Pr Q's strictures leave us none the wiser on this score.

Windschuttle's personality may, or may not, be nasty and he may or may not support racists. His personal character, and political views, are logically irrelevant to his professional competence. His scholarship, or lack of it, stands, or falls on its intellectual merits. Some may be interested in the moral virtues of his biography. I am interested in the intellectual value of his historiography.

Windschuttle's latest thesis appears to be as much a critique of Multicultural Seperatism as a defence of White Australia, although Pr Q passes over this aspect without comment. The invidious and vicious "hard" Multi-Culti doctrine, propagated endlessly by foolish or roguish Pee-Cee, Po-Mo identity politicians over the past generation, is racist in everything but name. Windschuttle deserves some praise for having the courage to attack it.

I feel sorry for anyone who defended Windschuttle's earlier campaign defending the treatment of Tasmanian Aborigines on the assumption that he was an honest seeker after historical truth, rather than, as is now clear, a consistent apologist for racism, happy to use racist arguments in support of his cause. I'd welcome comments from anyone honest enough to retract their previous support for Windschuttle.

A distinction needs to be made between varying claims made by Windschuttle and his supporters. Windschuttles weak argument, that there was no AUS genocide policy, was validated by the debate. Most 20th C Aborigines have benefited from contact with European settlement. It is the black-armbanders who need to acknowledge that modern AUS history is not just a post-script to genocide.

W's strong argument, that the AUS governemnt countenanced no significant massacres of Aborigines, has been discredited. Pr Q is correct to insist that Windschuttle is apologetic for racism.

Windschuttle, I believe, was an opponent of the Apartheid regime and protested against it when the Springboks came out. That should count in his favour in any moral beauty contest.

Setting aside the pros and cons of Windschuttle it would be nice if those students who honestly investigated the political implications of ethnic differences were not automaticly denounced as "racists". The Human Genome Project is making human ethnicity a real object of scientific study. There are times when the decent requirement for civility towards un-empowered genders, races and species veers into a form of pee-cee intimidation that chills free inquiry. Is the liberal academy going to kick out the bio-scientific baby with the socio-racist bathwater?

PS from embittered ex-Leftist to Nabakov: The sixties and seventies did produce some worthwhile cultural performance, above and beyond the sex, drugs and rock n'roll. The political estblishment of equitable treatment to people of non-White Male gender, race and species was a Good Thing.

I think the apology in this instance will need to come from John because I cannot find anyting in the Deborah Snow piece to suggest that KW is a supporter of racism. His major point appears to be that the white Australia policy was not introduced on specifically racist grounds and the generation of '68 has "read back" to insert virulent and widespread racism into the mix of motivations for the policy.

"Windschuttle, I believe, was an opponent of the Apartheid regime and protested against it when the Springboks came out. That should count in his favour in any moral beauty contest."

Without ever giving a clear account of himself, Windschuttle has repudiated his leftist past. In the absence of any clear statement, it's a fair assumption that whatever he believed on any issue before about 1990, he believes the opposite now.

Hand in hand with the desire to protect jobs went the fear of people who were not like us. Rhetoric aside, anyone on the street - in any country - is still potentially a racist now. Any minute now, you or I might face a moral choice and fail the test. Great, isn't it....

There is a tension between wanting to recognise the full humanity of past generations - as opposed to condemning them - and needing to reject what we now correctly see as the emblems of their self-justified fear.

That tension is best resolved by recognising the banality and omnipresence of evil, alongside the good in all of us, always.

I'm fascinated by the repeated suggestion that no one should comment on Windschuttle before reading his book. The debate over White Australia is an old one, and the points raised by Windschuttle have all been debated many times before. It is well established that, while economic motives were relevant, racism was the dominant factor in promoting the White Australia policy, as the name indicates.

Windschuttle has an established track record (since 1990) as an apologist for racism in all its forms. As far as premature judgement goes, I'd suggest that everyone should think very carefully before defending him.

"I'm fascinated by the repeated suggestion that no one should comment on Windschuttle before reading his book."

I'm equally fascinated by your insistence that you can rule unequivocally on the inherent wickedness of his entire thesis on the basis of a few hundred words from a third party - who, almost certainly, hasn't read the book either. It's not your comment that disturbs me, John, it's the conclusions that you're drawing on pretty insubstantial evidence. It's not a practice that I would have anticipated from you.

Geoff, I regularly comment on statements reported in the papers, and so, I expect, do you. Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't do this until we have made a complete examination of the record of the person in question, including their published works?

How does the fact that the statement refers to a newly-published book change things? If Howard makes a statement alluding to a government report restating long-held positions, do we have to read the report before responding?

Of course, it's possible that the report is 100 per cent wrong, and that Windschuttle's book is actually a denunciation of the White Australia policy. If so, I will be the first to apologise to him. Is this the kind of possibility you are concerned about?

Any excuse will serve a tyrant.
-- Aesop - "The Wolf and the Lamb"

The morality of racism is all about the concept "Not in My Backyard." History tells us that white man failed to be tolerant of strangers, especially black strangers, in his old and new backyard...

The communists used to illustrate how badly the American capitalists treated the black people, but failed to treat gypsies as human beings.

No one knows more about the absurdity behind the idea of the so-called superiority of the white man as Ghandi and Mandela. So the kind of possibility I am concerned about the one Ghandi shuffled to us so forcefully:

When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been murderers and tyrants, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it, always.
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948)

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
-Karl Popper

It's not the act of commenting that concerns me, it's the sweeping scope of the denunciation therein on the basis of near zero analysis of what he's actually proposing. It certainly seems that he's offering a challenge to conventional understandings of the White Australia Policy but whether or not that's intrinsically 'racist,' can't reasonably be gleaned from what's on offer. But...it's a balmy Sunday afternoon and I'm sounding like a broken record; we'll obviously have to agree to diagree on this.

we'll obviously have to agree to diagree on this.

Hey not so fast. I mean this exchange has only gone on for a few hundred words at most. Is that really enough to sustain a statement of such sweeping scope as this? I think you and John need to sit down for an intensive series of talks -- I'd say two to three months should be enough to begin to get a sense of the other person's position. ;)

Jack Strocchi wrote "W's strong argument, that the AUS governemnt countenanced no significant massacres of Aborigines, has been discredited" .

Governor Stirling led the troops that massacred between 30 and 70 defenceless people at Pinjarra in 1834. What part of his role in the Government of W.A. are you querying?

Mr Quiggen: you seen to know very little about the so-called White Australia Policy. But here's something to test your well worn synapses: can you provide us with numerical information on the ethnicity of arrivals from the early 1900s up to the 1960s or early 1970s? They are available, but I don't see why I should bother doing work you should have done before shooting your mouth off. You probably won't be interested in what they show - because of the challenge they pose for your ridiculous thesis - but they're interesting nonetheless.

Oh, to have been taught at university by an independent thinker such as you. An independent mind is something to relish, no? Unfortunately you're is as closed as they come. UQ must be proud.

Mark Bahnisch - who also hails from Queensland I see - makes note that Windschuttle is not a professional historian. Oh dear me. That just won't do, will it? Not at all. What next? Historians pretending to be journalists? Economists writing on racism? Where will it end?

Alex,

You ask --

"Is it indeed "racism" (whether of the luke warm or any other variety) to take into account the likelihood of subsequent social upheaval when considering who should and who should not be allowed to immigrate to our country?"

Yes of course it is. Absent racism, fears of "subsequent social upheaval" would be largely illusory. The authors of the White Australia Policy knew themselves for the racists they were. They just weren't ashamed of it and in denial.

As a prominent modern racist once said --

"I sympathise fundamentally with those Australians who are insulted when told we have a racist and bigoted past"

FWIW, here's what the man himself says, in the promo page on his own blog:

The White Australia Policy
(Race and shame in the Australian history wars)

Many historians today argue that its immigration policy was once so shamefully racist that Australia was almost an international pariah, like South Africa under apartheid.

This book shows these claims are so exaggerated they lack all credibility. Australia is not, and never has been, the racist country its academic historians have condemned.

(Technicolor) yawn.

Australia was almost an international pariah

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that. In the hey-day of the White Australia Policy, most countries were racist. We fit right in.

In the hey-day of the White Australia Policy, most countries were racist. We fit right in."

I suspect that's pretty much going to be Windschuttle's case, Robert. Along with his (oft expressed) view that some historians continue to impute a singular, worst case scenario in respect of the Australian experience that ignores the international context of the time.

The idea that you have to have read a book in order to condemn it is just silly. I'm guessing no contributor to this forum has read Mein Kampf. Then none of us should condemn it, right/ Maybe Hitler just had a bad press.

As for Windschuttle, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ....

Geoff, if that's Windschuttle's line then I don't know who he's arguing against. I certainly haven't read anyone "black armband" historian who thinks Australia was uniquely racist. They tend to point out that such racism is inherent in the colonial project, and as such there is no material difference between our experience and that of other colonial nations.

From the brief comments reported by the Herald, though, Windschuttle appears to be going further. It sounds like he will go on to argue that because racism was acceptable at the time, there is no scope for historians to criticise the policy on the basis of its racism.

In any event, I'm looking forward to reading Windschuttle's book. I hope to find a copy in the library this week (I'm not going to pay for it...).

This debate is like every other debate that tackles the subject of race: it reeks of bad faith. One therefore must go through the ball-busting business of "deconstructing "various sub-texts in order to tease out the truth.

Windschuttle is not an out and out racist in the political sense of making a general argument for white supremacy, supporting a revival of a race-based immigration policy or advocating a regime of domestic apartheid. In fact he takes the opposite point of view on each and every one of these positions, so far as I am aware.

Windschuttles arguments appear to lend aid and comfort to actual and existing racists. That may make Windschuttle a "fellow traveller" with racists, or vice-versa. If that is his aim then he deserves to be bagged.

Anti-Windschuttle includes some anti-racists (eg Pr Q) and some a pro-racist band who advocate crypto-tribal seperatism, flying under the flag of "multiculturalism" ( eg the Theophanoids).

OTOH, if Windschuttle wants to bag multicultural seperatists then I am with him all the way. This push is utterly toxic to AUS civil society under conditions of post-modernity and globalisation. Integration of minority citizens into mainstream society is not a moral luxury. It is a moral necessity which has become, literally, a matter of life or death to both indigenes and immigrants.

Fighting hardcore nativists (inter-national racists) and multi-cultis (intra-national racists) in the USE, USA & AUS is ten times more important than a rancorous debate over the morality of an obscure immigration policy whose law has been a dead letter for 40+ years. Those not yet old enough to be called aging baby boomers can be forgiven for scratching their heads at the use of ideological venues for what seem to be sociological squabbles.

The idea that you have to have read a book in order to condemn it is just silly. I'm guessing no contributor to this forum has read Mein Kampf. Then none of us should condemn it, right/ Maybe Hitler just had a bad press.

I make that 47 comments before Hitler was used. Still, that means Guido must now play catch-up to get back on the scoreboard.

Amen to all that, Jack. And Spiros, if all Hitler had ever done was written Mein Kampf, perhaps your argument would have had some legs.

Ok, IRA, I'll amend my statement. Windschuttle has an Honours degree in history. Usually one needs a PhD or a research degree of some sort in order to qualify as an academic historian. I imagine he earns money from his writing, and it's on history, so maybe he should be recognised as a professional historian.

That still doesn't mean that anything he says cannot be challenged.

Alex, you make no sense. Mein Kampf stands alone as a racist book. It doesn't need to be validated by Hitler's later actions.

But I digress. It's probably against blogging rules to post the same comment twice, but here is what I just posted on John R Word subject. (It probably belongs here anyway.)

Here is an extract from what Wikipedia has to say about the origins of the White Australia Policy

" The main rationale of the policy was to keep Australia racially pure. "I am prepared to do all that is necessary to ensure that Australia shall be free for all time from the contamination and the degrading influence of inferior races." (Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 12th Sept 1901 p.4845) The trade unions and their political party, the Labor Party, was the driving force for White Australia. Chris Watson, the leader of the Labour Party stated that "The objection I have to the mixing of these coloured people with the white people of Australia - although I admit it is to a large extent tinged with considerations of an industrial nature - lies...in the possibility and probability of racial contamination." It was widely believed that racial purity was essential for social and political stability. "The unity of Australia is nothing, if that does not imply a united race. A united race not only means that its members can intermix, intermarry and associate without degradation on either side, but implies one inspired by the same ideas..." (Alfred Deakin, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 12 September 1901, p.4807) "

And from the same article, this is what our first Prime Minister, Edmund Barton had to say:

"The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman."

Source for the above quotes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy

Barton, Deakin, Watson: these weren't fringe characters. They were all Prime Ministers at or shortly after Federation. Our national leaders, the architects of the WAP, didn't mince their words. They spoke of the need to avoid racial "contamination" and "degradation" which would result from mixing the races.

So tell us again, Mr Windschuttle, how the WAP was not based on notions on racial superiority.

Jack, if you find Hitler analogies so offensive, here is another. I haven't read any of Lyndon LaRouche's books. But I can make a judgment about their contents. How? By reading about them from reputable sources.

I haven't read the Bible either, come to think of it, but I have a pretty good idea of what's in that book, too.

Alan, racism has nothing to do with fears of being swamped by immigrants as such. History is full of examples where real swamping occurred or came close, and in many of these cases there was little or no racial difference. I'll give some examples, leaving Palestine out in case anyone argues that Jews and Palestinians are materially different racially:-

- Goths coming into the Roman Empire when fleeing the Huns.

- Uskoks fleeing the Turks and turning to piracy and brigandage to support themselves in the fringes of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

- Zulus et al entering areas occupied by other Bantu groups in southern Africa.

- US settlers in the Oregon territory (leading to the loss of area formerly under the Hudson's Bay Company).

- Pontics and other Greeks displaced by the "exchange of minorities" in the 1920s, ending up a local majority in many areas with an existing culture that wasn't a melting pot (think of the loss of respect for the class structure and rise of socialism in Euboea).

- "Ausis", i.e. former East Germans, heading west in hopes of a better life in former West Germany.

I don't think you can seriously argue that all these disturbances were accompanied by a racial element, or even that all similar cases were racial even when thre was a racial difference to begin with. For instance, racial fears in Fiji arose out of the flooding, they did not precede it, and the similar fears of Indian coolie labour in Queensland were genuinely matched by the ramifications of Indian immigration in similar areas elsewhere in the British Empire such as Mauritius and the Caribbean (particularly British Guiana). The question of whether the fears were racist had no bearing on whether they were well founded, at any rate in the Indian coolie cases.

MB, I neither know nor care what Windschuttle's own motives are, and I suggest that the facts of White Australia have far more relevance - anything else is to condemn the argument according to its author. And no, I am not suggesting that we do that to Fairfax publications, or that we should abstain from using them, merely that we shouldn't rest a whole condemnation on such a flimsy foundation. After all, I spotted the Ages error over Howard by referring to independent media sources. I should look up the references sometime, so anyone interested can see for themselves in hard copy libraries.

"The idea that you have to have read a book in order to condemn it is just silly. I'm guessing no contributor to this forum has read Mein Kampf. Then none of us should condemn it, right/ Maybe Hitler just had a bad press."

That's an inane comparison. For the umpteenth time, it's not about 'reading the book' per se. It's about having some reasonable evidence base upon which to base one's critique - other than a couple of hundred words of some else's once-over-lightly interpretation of a fairly major issue.

Looking at all the posts so far, it is evident that the original architects of the WAP had racist views and also that racist motives were a significant part of their reason for introducing the legislation. This, however, is a different issue from whether the legislation itself was desirable at the time. And this again is a different issue from whether the legislation was frequently applied in racist ways at the time or subsequently. Whether it is racist now to defend the legislators' actions then is yet another issue. A lot of the confusion so far seems to derive from conflating these different aspects of the question. JQ's original post set the tone, imho.

Alex - you have come a long since your first comment above - but don't stop yet. Keith Windschuttle is running an agenda here - motives unknown and we all have our theories - but, whichever way, his history is propaganda designed for present day purposes.

That's why it's in the media. That's why we are talking about it now. This is not dull dry history for the eyes of academy only. This is social agitprop. It is poison.

If the White Australia policy may have been rational and progressive once - then there's no reason to assume that it may not be rational and progressive once again. There are many out there who will decide on that. And Keith is starting a conversation with them.

I will second wbb's comments above. The racist nature and foundation of the White Australia Policy is so clear that one can only assume that people who try to make arguments to the contrary are seriously blinded to reality or are actually trying out a bit of "social agitprop".

As someone who (reluctantly) bought the last Windschuttle tome in order to critique it (and did so, being the only person to elicit a thoroughgoing and academic, though vituperative, response from him (see Labour History and www.evatt.org.au), I have decided not to bother weighing into this debate. My reasons;

1) 'white Australia policy was not racist' is clearly an oxymoron, abundantly obvious to anybody.
2) where have the promised vols 2 and 3 of the Fabrication series gone, and why has he segued into the 1950s? Last I spoke to him he was writing volume 2, and made no mention of this book, yet he appears to have produced it in less than a year - a blinding pace, which suggests little reflection. Or perhaps we academic historians landed more hits than he admitted, and he is actually backing off.
3) his work is clearly nothing more than an anti-Reynolds crusade, and I am tired of pondering the psychological reasons for that (the historical reasons don't generally stand up, beyond the odd misquote)

Oxygen deprivation is the only cure for Windschuttle fungus. He is definitely a media tart.

We all can indulge in not being racists at the moment, because we don't feel threatened. But I wonder how many of us would maintain our present views if, say, half a million boat people were arriving on our shores every year, unchecked?

Ah, I see. Rejecting racism is merely "indulgence", and not a matter of fundamental human rights.

No, you don't see Robert. My point is that it is easy to profess being a non-racist in Australia here and now, but these professed views are not really being put to the test. You claim that being anti-racist is a matter of fundamental human rights. But what if it is your rights (or even your life) that are being threatened? Check out P.M. Lawrence's personal recollection on the other thread.

BTW, thanks to JQ for initiating a bracing and entertaining discussion. Haven't had so much fun in ... well, several days, at least.

Oh, and a completely off-thread comment to JQ. Your datestamp has not been adjusted for daylight saving. Bloody Queenslanders - still worried about fading the curtains!

Alex, I have received credible threats from racists on the basis of anti-racist campaigning. However, I am glad that you know more about me than I do; I must have imagined those threats.

Missed my point again, Robert. If your rights (or life) were being threatened because of your race, by those of another race (as in the P.M. Lawrence anecdote I referred you to) you might become more anti-racist in one sense (ie that you would resent being persecuted for your race, as well as philosophically being opposed to it) but in other ways you might start to become racist yourself (ie by becoming opposed to your persecutors as well as the persecution).

That is a risk no matter what we're talking about. It is certainly something that I would strive to avoid. I don't see what your point is -- that because some people succumb to racism, we should not condemn it?

No, my point is that our opinions and ideologies are shaped by the time and place in which we live. Thus it is somewhat hypocritical to claim the moral high ground on the basis that our opinions and ideologies are superior to those of people in another time or place. If we shared their milieu, we might share their opinions and ideologies too.

The white Australia policy was a policy applicable to the times. If Quiggan condemns this policy he ought to also attack the racist policies currrently practised by our neigbours up north. Malaysian domestic policy currently discriminates against Chinese. Quiggan ever written about this? Not to my knowledge he hasn't. The left never displays any coonsistency other than ratting off about how bad Australia and the US are.
If Quiggan wants to be consistent he should have told us a long time ago what he thought about Malaysian policy (not now). Otherwise he needs to shut right up because he has no moral right to criticise Australia's past.

"coonsistency"

In this context, Gold!

Joe, your argument is imbecilic.

John lives in Australia, so there is one reason why he might post more frequently about it than about Malaysia.

Furthermore, he is responding to an argument that was made in the press. When someone raises Malaysia's racial policies and gains widespread media coverage, then perhaps it would be a reasonable comparison.

Jason Soon condemned the Malaysian policies a long time ago (I understand he has some connection to Malaysia, which explains his particular interest), and has condemned the White Australia Policy now.

Alex, you're arguing against a straw man. Nobody has denied that the White Australia Policy was a product of its time. They are simply pointing out that that time was racist.

Why should this 'historian' rascist Windshuttle even be allowed to comment on the white Australia policy? Surely this discussion will only lead to more children being locked in detention centres and having their eyes sewn shut by the Facist Howard regime! Plus he is white so that disqualifies him from commenting because white people are not a race!

"Nobody has denied that the White Australia Policy was a product of its time. They are simply pointing out that that time was racist." Yes, and at the same time condemning a person who attempts to understand that time on its own terms as "an apologist for racism". Sounds like claiming the moral high ground to me.

The good professor may not have read Windschuttle's book, but I can tell you I'm immediately turned off by his early and frequent use of the "R" word - racist/racism - the most overused, misused, corrupted linguistic dodge for the last decade. The left has cried the racism wolf day in, day out for years and honestly, I hardly hear it anymore. The concept of racism itself is useless. It's the most open-ended, subjective, all-inclusive condemnation since "blasphemy" and IMO deserves to go the same route into disrepute. For the Professor to still be hurling it around, sound in the knowledge that just hearing the accusation of "racism" will bend anyone to his opinion, just shows how out of touch he is with an increasingly jaded public who can see with their own eyes that the left's utopia of "absolute tolerance of everything" just does not work.

Pr. Quiggin, it is evident, does not consider himself a racist. But I know that he is, or at least a defender of racist policy. Just one example: I have it on good authority that the university department at which he works does not employ non-english-speakers - a clear example of racist discrimination. You can't explain this racism away as a means to a productivity or workplace end. It's racism pure and simple - just see above for many arguments supporting this. Where is your condemnation of this obvious racism, John?

Oh, now he'll say I'm just being silly. But what you don't realise, John, is that the left's - and your - endless banging on about how evil and racist we all are are equally ridiculous. Anyone with any knowledge of history and any understanding of the culture of the time can easily understand how such a policy could have been implemented, and equally gratified by the proof of progress that it was, in time, undone. I haven't read the book so I have no idea who the target market is - but I suspect, John, that it is you, who cannot listen to even one minutes' worth of discussion about the ideas, the intentions, and even the goodwill that went into the policies of the time without putting fingers into both ears and shouting "Racist!! Racist!!"

You do yourself a discredit.

One more thing.

I absolutely deplore the use of the loaded nickname for the Migration Control Act/Migration Act of the time. It was never officially named the "White Australia Policy", despite the popularity of the term. If you were to read a description of the act, you might find it quite obvious and uncontroversial in its exclusion of unskilled foreigners, in pretty much the same way we do today. In fact, proponents of the "Black, Racist Armband" view might be surprised to hear a quote from the Immgration Minister in 1958 stating" that ‘distinguished and highly qualified Asians’ might immigrate".

"White Australia Policy"? But educated asians are welcome? Sound so racially motivated now?

Any serious debate should not use the WAP name. If we are going to discuss the policy and the times, and not the name, which of course no-one can argue against, then why don't we instead rail against the injustice of the "Migration (Control) Act, 1850-1973".

How about it?

James

I don't have much trouble spotting the difference between a university's policy of preferring English speakers to teach courses in English, and a government's policy to exclude immigrants on the basis of their physical appearance. Do you?

James #2,

No actually, I don't have that problem either. However, it's totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Physical appearance has nothing to do with it. The principle method of rejection for unwanted immigrants was that they would fail a language and diction test. The rationale was living wages, social justice, and national security. Nothing about appearances, however much the left would have liked it to be as simple as that.

"the Immgration Minister in 1958 stating" that 'distinguished and highly qualified Asians' might immigrate".

That may well have been the prevailing attitude in 1958, after more than half a century of race-based exclusionism.

Here is Alfred Deakin, one of the most liberal of Australians in 1901, explaining the majority party's attitude to the proposal that Japanese might be declared honorary whites:

"I contend that the Japanese require to be excluded because of their high abilities. I quite agree ... that the Japanese are the most dangerous because they most nearly approach us, and would, therefore, be our most formidable competitors. It is not the bad qualities, but the good qualities of these alien races that make them dangerous to us ... It is the business qualities, the business aptitude, and general capacity of these people that make them dangerous, and the fact that while they remain an element in our population, they are incapable of being assimilated." [LaNauze, p. 279.]

What would a modern labour economist make of this economic argument?

Economics pulls one way, racist ideology pulls the opposite direction.

Racism wins.

Sounds to be in line with the prevailing protectionism.

It has nothing to do with economic protectionism. In fact it is the opposite of protectionism.

Protectionism has its origins in, and draws its justification from, mercantilism.

Mercantilism gave top priority to engrossing as much of the "valued added" elements of production and exchange as possible within the administration and purview of the metropolitan government. The idea was to increase economic activity to sustain as high a quantum of tax as possible.

To follow a consistent policy of protectionism, Australian governments would have encouraged as many highly productive economic actors as possible within its boundaries.

Exclusion of Japanese, by Deakin's own admission, aimed at achieving the opposite result.

Great comments, Katz. You are the hands-down MVP on this thread.

I don't have anything to add, except to reinforce Naomi's point, which I think was particularly apposite:

"'white Australia policy was not racist' is clearly an oxymoron, abundantly obvious to anybody."

Katz, what would a 1901 labour economist (assuming there was such a thing) have made of that argument? What would a 1901 labourer have made of it?

'The principle method of rejection for unwanted immigrants was that they would fail a language and diction test'

In Gaelic? Doesn't sound very principled to me.

Hey Katz
Instead of worrying about typos, why don't you argue the points; or is that a little too difficult for a lefty. Isn't the modus of a lefty like you and Quiggan to attack the person rather than the argument.

And Robert:

I would guess that you and Quiggan deplore any racism anywhere don't you. Ever seen Quiggan deplore the Malaysians. Why not. He just wants to stick it to historians and accuse them of the most vlie things. No wonder your type is out of power and will remain so with attitudes like that.

It's QUIGGIN

good christ. it apparently is the case that we are having a serious argument about whether something called a "white australia policy" was racist.

if windschuttle can acheive this, then no comment of his is self-evidently absurd enough not to be defended by his fans.

Hi Joe,

Why am I not surprised to find you backing White Australia? Or are you going to surprise me and denounce Windschuttle the moment I deplore Malaysia's discrimination against ethnic Chinese?

Only one way to find out!

I deplore Malaysia's discrimination against ethnic Chinese. Also, racism in Rwanda, Sudan, Japan and anywhere else you care to name.

Over to you!

John:
Two things:

1. If you read my comments very carefully I said you are always quick to condemn Australia past and present.

2. To prove your authenticity that your motive is not simple politics I asked if you had ever (IN THE PAST) condemned Malaysian treatment of Chinese. You haven't.

3. Now you do, but why not in the past? Omission?
Thoughtlessness? Or expediency for now?

John there is nothing worse than a hypocrite. I am afraid you are one for these reasons:

1. You only now prepared to criticise Malaysia but not previously.
2. You have not read this book but you are prepared to accuse this man of being a racist.

I truly believe that you are a racist and a hypocrite for never attacking Malaysian policy.
You and the rest of your brianless babble are quite prepared to throw this horrid word around as though it has no meaning. You truly disgust me.
I understand that you once accused Gerry Jackson of being a Stalinist. Brookesnews is a free market E-zine. How anyone could describe the editor of Brooknews editor of being a Stalinist is.... You must live in a Parallel universe.

One last thing, I can't critique the book because like you I have not read it.
Unlike you I would not offer an opinion unless I read it.

Please, please don't criticise my grammar or my typos. I am not interested in that. Just stick to criticism of what I am trying to convey. Are you up to it, or ......

Hey Joe, what's with your obsession with Malaysia?

There are lots of example of racism in the world. Why them in particular?

This stuff about Malaysia is bizarre. Why is it necessary when condemning something to condemn simultaneously everything else in the world that has similarities? Presumably, it's a reasonable inference that if someone (like John Q) is opposed to racism in Australia they oppose racism everywhere.

It really is a very silly debating tactic.

Oh - and snuh, I couldn't agree more.

Joe, please list every policy from anywhere around the world that you have criticised. We will then offer examples of repugnant policies that you have not yet condemned. Because you will not have condemned them before being asked to do so, we will call you a racist and a hypocrite. If you refuse to do so, then we will just call you a hypocrite.

Hey Spiro:
My point about Malaysia in fact is a good one, if you had thought about it.
1. It's right on our doorstep. And we all know how Quiggan loves talking about the region.

2. The racism practised there is the law of the land- it has legal protection.

It is interesting how Quiggan and his braindead babble are always at the front of the line in accusing others of the most vile things. Racism is a serious accusation. Publicily accusing a scholar like Windshuttle of such a vile thing is beyond argument. It is nothing other than vile putrid crap which shows Quiggan to be nothing other than the second rate mind.

At the very least countries like the US and Australia are capable of righting wrongs from the past which makes us not perfect but the very best of what humanity can offer.
Second rate minds like Quiggan don't see that and second rate minds like Quiggan citicise a piece of scholarship without reading it.

Mark:

You said:

it's a reasonable inference that if someone (like John Q) is opposed to racism in Australia they oppose racism everywhere.

Ah, no it's not a reasonable inference. We can't read anyone's mind ( unless you are a babble head who thinks so). I can only go with the facts.
I have never seen Quiggan criticise legaiised racism in Malaysia. I can only imply from that he thought it was ok until now when it only suits him.

In another lengthy comment, Joe hasn't taken up my invitation to denounce Windschuttle's apologies for racism, nor has he so far had the guts to endorse them openly. Why am I not surprised?

Robert:
Seriously, are you retarded.
I have critised a book and it's author of being racist. Quiggan did that.

Whats the rest of the stuff you are asking me to do with this- an accusation of racsim was levelled (see above and read it again) without any research. Am I missing something here?

John:
I haven't read the book. NEITHER HAVE YOU.
aren't you getting this.
It's not up to me to provide evidence. It's up to you. YOU accused this author of racsim. BLOODY WELL PROVE IT OR APOLOGISE. I would firstly suggest you read the BLOODY book before you level serious accusations like that.
Where the hell is your sense of scholarship.

Joe, any more abusive comments, coarse language or upper caps and you'll be barred.

You seem to forget that this forthcoming book isn't Windschuttle's only publication. Go up to the next post (the R-word) and check over the fold for the kinds of things I am complaining about.

Comment deleted for abusive language. Anything more like this and you'll be barred.

Sorry John.

Thanks for reminding me of the rules.
Accusing someone of being a racist though you haven't read the book is ok.
Using the B..... or upper case is serious stuff.
Gotcha!

John,
How about answering the above issues.

How can you as a scholar accuse Windschuttle of racism without reading his book? Please.....?

John:
I just read your attack on me where you accused me of (guess what again) of being a racist.

You wrote:

In another lengthy comment, Joe hasn't taken up my invitation to denounce Windschuttle's apologies for racism, nor has he so far had the guts to endorse them openly. Why am I not surprised?

Your question is an inference that I too am a racist. This is not offensive in your universe.

I, like you haven't read the book. I put forth the point that this word has very serious connotations.
I suggest that at the very least you ought to read the book before making such a serious accusation.

Without one single shread of evidence you impugn me of being racist as well when I all ask is that you ought get your fact's ( read the book) before making this accusation.

This is the same universe we both live in?

Congratulations, JQ. You have got the century up. A sterling achievement!

Congratulations to me, too (Second comment down.)

OK Joe, or maybe I should say Gerry, how about getting your grammar in order. Not to mention your spelling. To your posts, your paranoia is all too obvious, even though you may be actually right. Calm down.

Thanks everyone for helping me reach this milestone. The innings is declared closed. If you want to help me with the double century, please move to the R-word