Immigration in Australia and the British Cultural Influence - Essay Example

Immigration in Australia and the British cultural Influence (Name) (Institution) (Grade/Course) (Tutor’s Name) 13th November 2009 The early contact between native Australians and the outside world is best illustrated by the relationship between the aborigines and the British colonizers. In the initial and subsequent years, the relationship between the two was basically hostile. The British settlers were clearing natural aboriginal habitat for agriculture. The settlers also despised the “primitive” aboriginal culture. They thus sought to civilize the aboriginals who were not wiling to do so. As such, the Britons had to use force to assimilate the natives and use them forcefully as hands in their farms. In the most basic terms, the native Australian was not ready to disregard his culture to embrace a foreign one. The settlers disregarded the aboriginal way of life and religion. In fact they went on and destroyed holy sites and worship places of the aboriginals. With time, some aboriginals complied while others remained adamant. With the growth of farms lands and the demand for labor, the British government used Australia’s as a deportation center for its convicts. Genuine settlers would use the convicts as laborers in their lands. These came to be called the convict days (Hansey, & Gibney, p 78). During this time the aboriginal people were denied their basic rights and even denied the right of voting. This gave no room to the aboriginal people to embrace the British culture which in all ways did not respect their culture and any assimilation carried out was forced. According to the Australian Government Portal, a total of 162, 000 convicts were transported to Australia with the last shipment being in 1868. With the knowledge of the aboriginals of the status of these convicts, there was no room for interaction on a friendly level. However, due to the seemingly harsh treatment accorded to the convicts and the aboriginals in the farmlands, the element of shared suffering facilitated cultural interaction between the two communities. However, these convicts were not British origin alone but also from Scotland, Ireland and those sourced from other British outposts such as India and Canada. Nevertheless, the Colonial government had adopted a general policy of assimilation that would see the aboriginal people take in the British culture including way of worship On the other hand the coming of the settlers meant a negative impact to the general native populace of Australia. Between 1788 and 1900, there was a 90% decrease of the aboriginal population as a direct result of a combination of disease, loss of land and direct violence (aboriginal art). By 1960’s, the indigenous population had reduced to between 50, 000 and 90, 000. In recognition of the role of the indigenous population, the commonwealth government in 1962 gave voting rights to the aborigines in commonwealth elections. Still on the 1960’s the shortage of skilled labor in Australia called for the weakening of the white policy meaning that immigrants from other countries were readily accepted. The intake and acceptance of these skilled non-European migrants was driven by economic expediency at the cost of the white Australia policy. The idea of multiculturalism was in some way limited by the introduction of a point system in 1979 that required English proficiency on the immigrants. This thus explicitly showed the influence of the British culture in terms of language. Before the convict days, Australia is one of the few countries in the world that has actively encouraged immigration into the country. This started in the early 20th century and more so after the Second World War. Europe remained to be the largest source of immigrants in the country before Asia took over. This tend was encouraged in order to ensure the country had enough population as a security measure after the fears and potential threats that the war presented. Britain and Ireland, countries that have relatively the same culture, topped the numbers of immigrants into Australia. This meant that they migrated into Australia and introduced their culture. According to Murphy, the division of Europe after WW2 presented Australia with a bunch of new non-traditional immigrants from Eastern Europe. This led to the diffusion of the British and Irish cultural influence in native Australians mainly the aborigines. With the end of the war, Australia’s outlook on the world changed significantly from the one the country had maintained since the World War 1. The change was best demonstrated by the policy on immigration linked to two main issues; national survival and national development. These two issues were interrelated and connected by immigration and the fact that they had been triggered by the realities of war. In anticipation of any other war Australia was preparing a wartime economy that had enough man power to push the economy in hard times and even build its armies. Previous policies on immigration had mainly centered on social adjustment (Hansey, & Gibney, p 84) Another reality brought about by the war was the realization by Australia that traditional ties with Britain were not enough to guarantee her stability in the underlying shifts in world order and power balance. These traditional ties were no longer immune to or isolated from world forces and military interruptions. This meant that reliance on Britain on military defense alone needed a thorough overhaul. The Australians saw the need to establish and develop their own identity free from the British. Thus the war stimulated and fostered a sense of nationality and a sense of purpose for the Australians. The process of abandoning the previous system that had restricted Australia to the commonwealth and imperial boundaries was not simple in the beginning. Nevertheless, great steps were taken with the creation of the Department of Post-War Reconstruction in 1942 which according to Hansey, and Gibney, (p 85) was responsible for the drafting economic and trade relations with other countries such as the signing of the Mutual Aid Agreement with the US. This agreement set the stage for Australia for engaging in trade relations outside imperial preference. The Department of Post-War Reconstruction was not only involved in economic ties alone but also in immigration. Previous immigration programs, in the in the 1920’s had centered and concentrated on “expanding primary industry commodities to serve the British market. It was a piece of cosy protectionism, a neo-mercantilist last fling of a dying imperialist relationship going through its old economic routines before quietly slipping of the stage” (Hansey, & Gibney, p 58). Haebich (p 23) say that the changes in immigration would free Australia as a “Cinderella state” of Britain Immigrants were being place din specific industries and areas such as can farming in Queensland. Thus in the 1920’s excessive immigration was closely watched and guarded as it presented a threat to the status quo in employment, wage structures and social balance in a region. In fact Hansey, & Gibney (p 59) say that immigration was potentially a divisive issue prior to the Second World War. The change in attitude came about after the change in government policy with the creation of the Department of Post war Reconstruction as earlier mentioned. The new policy sought to increase diversity in immigrations readily presented by other Europeans countries apart from Britain and Asia. In the 1950’s, the world was tearing apart on racial and ethnic grounds while Australia was attempting to create a spirit of nationhood form the diversity of its immigrants. Hebich (p, 24) notes the contribution of a photograph exhibition called “The family of man” curated by Belgian Edward Steichen a resident of the US. The exhibition entailed fifty-three black and white photographs depicting different family groups from sixty eight different countries. The idea behind the exhibition was to display the commonality in men of all races and cultures in embracing the family union. The exhibition was also reinforced by quotes from religious texts. Basically culture and tradition is guided by religion or the other way round. Therefore, the exhibition served to reduce the British mentality planted among Australians on divisions along culture, nationality and race. However, the idea of the exhibition was criticized elsewhere outside Australia. In Paris, Roland Barthes said that the exhibition denied history and eliminated the difference that existed between races and cultures and also overlooked the social scars inflicted by one race culture or race. Though there are no recorded feelings or such views in Australia, it was possible there were restricted feeling in Australia also. This would ignite the harsh feelings and remind of the hostilities and injustices committed by the British against the indigenous communities in Australia (Haebich, p 26). Later on in the 1960’s, the “white policy” on immigration which had been in existence for many years but temporality threatened by the post world war 2 global migration was abolished. The “white policy” limited migration from non-European countries. Migrants from all over the world flocked to Australia planting the seed of multiculturalism which has been hailed as a trademark issue of the country. In fact there are two hundred languages recorded of in Australia brought in by the immigrants. This was in addition to the over 250 languages of the aboriginal people. Haebich (p, 67) quotes anthropologist Ghassan Hage who defines Australia’s white policy as being based on the British notion of white superiority that tended to imply that other races and cultures were inferior. Heavy ties with Britain made Australia to be considered as “white” and hence had to participate in alienating other races. Again the fact the aboriginals had more than 250 languages and yet still all of them were disregarded and the Australian government up to now has adopted English as the official and national language. Also the declaration by the then Minister for Immigration, Arthur Coalwell that declaring oneself as Australian directly translated to mean that one is British. The British culture thus whether rejected as first by the native Australians has remained to be the single and strongest influence on Australia as a nation. As a modern testimony to this claim, the Australian flag still bears the British flag on one corner. It would thus be appropriate to say that the British culture and way of life remains the greatest cultural influence in Australia which has transferred from culture to politics though at first, there had been reluctance to adopt that culture (Hansey & Gibney, p, 23). References Australian Government Portal, Retrieved on 11th May 2009 http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/convicts/ Iredale, R., Guo, F., and Rozario, S. Return migration in the Asia Pacific, London: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2003 Haebich, A., Spinning the Dream: Assimilation in Australia, Sydney: Fremantle Press, 2008 Old convict days, Retrieved on 11th May 2009, http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9C03E7DF1F3CE433A2575BC2A9629C946197D6CF Hugo, Graeme International Migration Transforms Australia, Retrieved on 11th May 2009 http://www.prb.org/Articles/2001/InternationalMigrationTransformsAustralia.aspx Tim, Johnston “Australians Debating Immigration and National Identity”, International Herald Tribune Jan 28th 2008, Retrieved on 11th May http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/citizen/2007/0128australiacitiz.htm Hansey, R., Gibney, M. Immigration and asylum: from 1900 to the present, Canberra: ABC-CLIO, 2005 Read More