When the British people decide to exit the European union, it will be forty three years since the British had joined the European Economic Community (EEC). During the economic paroxysms in the early 1970s Britain was facing a daunting reality of losing its economic ties with their traditional colonial markets from Commonwealth nations, particularly within the Agriproduce trade with Australia and New Zealand, which had moved from a globalist context of British imperial trade routes to domestic and regional trade partnerships within geo-political proximity. This geo-political economic essential lifeline was felt globally by all sovereign economies which made sense from a regional pragmatic and realpolitical perspective which would undermine the traditional imperial and colonial gains of the previous two centuries of colonial expansion by the British in particular.
The British empire where the sun never sets had diminished with the dynamic forces of political and economic tectonic ructions which would shatter and fragment the British hegemony by the nascent forces vying to undermine the established world order of the the day. No doubt the British had overstretched their Imperial grandeur imaginations, like the Romans before them and they could not possibly remain the perpetual hegemonic ruler of a vast Empire into perpetuity.
In 1942, the Japanese emphatically destroyed the British imperial conceit once and forever, when the Japanese imperial forces had unceremoniously and violently ousted the British from Singapore. The triumphant Japanese imperial force then would consider such a feat in parity with the humiliation of the Russian Naval power, in 1904, when Russia was defeated by the Japanese. In 1942, with the fall of Singapore, signified the humiliation of the British military power once and forever and the British military presence would never again rise again in Asia and in the South Pacific. In their stead, a nascent American hegemonic influence would prevent the complete decolonisation of Oceania. The Pax Americana remains the pervading influence world over since 1945.
Ten Pound Poms and Chiefly Administration’s One Million Britons Policy.
Meanwhile, the British have had to consolidate their diminished hegemonic influence with kowtowing to former colonial citizens with opening doors to former subjects migrant numbers returning with their former colonial Masters to Their former Master’s home as services rendered reward and relocation for past imperial loyalties. The Blackmails burden had come full circle with de-colonisation in 1945. Migration numbers increased into Europe and flowed into Britain. The White man’s burden then included multiculturalism.
In the meantime, the last bastion vestiges for British colonial influences would paradoxically include former penal settlements within the Antipodes. Australia remained a jewel in the British crown along with Canada and New Zealand. The British had sought to keep Australia British after world war two by opening their immigration doors with ten pound passage fares for Poms to migrate to Australia in an attempt to “Populate or Perish” policy. The Australian Labor Government under Ben Chiefly would promote the One Million Britain immigration target policy into Australia which would include a ten pound inducement. The outcome was only a few hundred thousands of mostly commonplace British people would accept the offer to migrate to Australia. Since the one million Poms policy became government policy and the target fell well short. Government had then reluctantly had to extend the immigration quota to include Eastern Europeans, which would include Italian, and Greek migrants and other European ethnicities were to accepted into the migration quota, which would fill in the quota gap allocated for Anglo-Celtic migrant numbers. The ten pound Poms were insufficient in meeting the immigration quota for the then Australian population needs. The policy was, of course, a subtle institutionalised a White Australia policy revisited. The Asian horde image since the war against the Imperial Japanese had created an acute xenophobia against Asians which still remains entrenched within most Australians until recently.
Some half century or so after world war two, the legacy of the one million Britons policy which had, initially, aimed to create a white Australia, paradoxically, and inadvertently instead, created a diverse, and vibrant, multicultural Australia, which is the modern Australian society of today.
Anglo-Celtic elements of culture pervades and is entrenched within almost every aspect of Australian society. Australia is very much a British municipality region all but the geographical relocation next to London City.
The Westminster system of government and obviously the Australian Politicians generally are predominately Anglo-Celtic, and European, persons. Clearly, as Australian and New Zealand societies are legacies of British colonial expansion and this legacy reflects the successfulness of the British in colonising the Antipodes.
For a member of a ethnic minority group, including an Indigenous person, this omnipresence of all things British, has been considered a complete cultural assimilation within every aspects of their lives. It is considered as a mainstreaming totalitarianism of sorts for some groups including migrant refugees held in detention Centres.
For Multicultural Australia, except for the way people from diverse ethnic backgrounds may look, their distinguishable physical features, the colour and shade of their skin, or the languages spoken, their religious practices, their unique dress, or when and how they interact and communicate within their cultural gatherings, which would make them either targets for racial profiling by the mainstream of society. Multiculturalism for the mainstream person, however, is more like taking a stroll down a mall full of restaurants and eateries and sensing the sights and smells of multicultural foods, and viewing people from diverse ethnicities congregating, and may be endeavouring to impress customers for their business, so they could sit in their restaurant and sample their cultural signature dishes. Or, to watch and listen to them perform on stage. Outside of these restaurants, sporting events, and entertainment exhibition displays, multiculturalism is meant to disappear and to assimilate into the Anglo-Celtic mainstream society. Government policies ignores the particularities of multiculturalism until the negative aspects of multiculturalism ignorance leads to social diseases like entrenched intergenerational welfarism, institutionalised unemployment, due to racial discrimination against employing minorities, particularly those perceived to be non-compliant to the Australian way of life and are therefore considered and perceived as trying to take Australian jobs from White Australians, since most Multicultural persons from Australian society are also naturalised and or Australian born Australian citizens. However, due to the obvious racial discrimination by many mainstream Anglo-Celtic employers, some ethnic minorities are still not regarded as AUSTRALIANS per se.
Paradoxically, what remains certain is the Anglo Celtic cultural conceit with keeping Australian official institutions as Anglo-Celtic influenced (Westminster traditions), as much as possible. Official government institutions and the three branches of power within government, remain firmly institutional bastions for British Imperial spheres of influence. Anything outside of this influence would be simply be dismissed and considered as being sourced from seditious Plebians and multicultural rabble rousers enjoining the Australian republican movement en masse.
The Australian and New Zealand military, Intelligence agencies, and the Law enforcement officers, remain predominately white Anglo-Celtic recruits, who become less of Australian or New Zealand citizens, and would assume and reinforce their British Subjectivity persona, with having to swear their Imperial allegiances to the British Monarch. Ethnic Minorities, and mostly, Irish Australians in particular, recruited into the military, intelligence and law enforcement services, must also pledge their allegiances to the British crown as well.
Australian Republicans, therefore, are institutionally disdainfully regarded by official government service. In response to the institutionalised disdain for Republicans is the exclusions from office, ironically, from citizenship rights, like rights to employment by government services. The only Republicans not included in this institutionalised black list are already established social elites, which would include the present Australian Prime Minister, a former chairman of the Australian Republican Movement.
The Islamic Jihadist the weapon of war against multiculturalism.
Anti-immigration has been used to justify the reasons for strong anti-multiculturalism sentiments amongst many mainstream Anglo-celtic Australians. Throughout Australian history, the Anglo-Celtic mainstream has viewed multiculturalism as kin with externalised threats to the Australian way of life. This way of life is British and is acutely Anglocentric in definition. Inspite the insipid legacy of Australia’s penal settlement colonial past, present day Australians are not coy in resorting to overt institutionalised draconian policies in punishing undesirable migrants and in particular undesirable illegal migrants, particularly if arriving by a leaking boat without correct documentations.
In general, the penal mentality legacy attitude, by most descendants of Anglo-Celtic penal Australians, has influenced the draconian attitudes toward migrant groups, which may be reflected in the treatment of boat people in detention centres, and, the xenophobic attitudes towards newly arrivals into Australia.
The draconian xenophobic attitudes has been helped by the global war on terror, thanks to Islamic Jihadists assisting the xenophobic Anglo-Celtic Australians with their justifying “Told-You-So” attitudes for the anti-multicultural attitudes.
The “I-told-you-so” type attitude has been the typical neo-conservative reactionary mindset which would be sourced from the strong anti-multicultural sentiments throughout Europe, North America, South East Asian communities, and elsewhere, which has typified the right wing mindset world over. It is a well reasoned argument for the established neo-conservative view of the world.
for the usual, and the newly arrived groups of Australian residents and citizens who are ethnically considered as marginalised ethnic groups within Australian society. The newly arrivals within the past decade, or so, include the Somalians, Hazaris from Afghanistan, and the Sudanese, mingling into the community alongside the not so new but more established and the usual ethnically marginalised ethnic groups from the the Asian, Polynesians, enjoining the old Australians, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islander people, as the original marginalised ethnic group within Australian society.
Often, the European and Middle Eastern groups, are more in numbers and are able to blend in with the Anglo-Celtic majority more so than the Africans, Aboriginals and Polynesians, within South East Queensland. However, with the recent Global war on terror and the Jihadist terrorist narrative, the Middle Eastern Semitic ethnic groups have been thrust into the usual suspect basket along with the Pacific Islanders, Aborigines and Africans. Otherwise, Semitic ethnic groups would be more accepted than Asians, Polynesians, and the indigenous people of Australia.
Class conflict seems subsumed by the pervading visualised ethnic-cultural and religious divide that establishes, firmly, the ‘them versus us’, which separates groups of people, including institutions like schools, religious establishments, and even the military and law enforcement agencies, which has typified the multicultural diverse communities within liberal democracies such as Australia, New Zealand, America and Britain.
Pluralism and competing ethnic groups vying for limited power resources compete in unequal competition which leads to the oft tenuous reality of cultural anxieties between multicultural groups clashing in search of employment, housing, educational opportunities, and quality of life expectations. Often, in the digital age, these conflicts manifest themselves in everyday interpersonal conduct and communication, indirectly through social media influences, and attitudinal zeitgeists which would be the faddish flavour of that particular time and era. From such social attitudes leads to social norms, sanctions, mores, conventions, and cultural elements which opens doors or shuts them for any particularly targeted group of types of individuals at that particular juncture in time. The denial of opportunities and discrimination based upon a certain ethnicity, religious creed, sexual persuasion and gender will be the usual targets by a dominant group at any particular time.
Brixet:
Brixet: The pervading winds of change are in the air.
Brixet in Britain will mark the return of the White Man's burden with their insistence of leaving the 'open door' policies of the European Union and the 'open door' policy on migration inflows from France and the Continent into Britain has been associated with Britain's inclusion into the EEC, since 1973.
Paradoxically, in the South Pacific, Brixet, will serve as a catalyst for Republican ANZAC's, as well. In that, this is great news for Australia and New Zealand Republicans, because with Brixet, although, the British will want to hold steadfast with the Commonwealth nations, will influence the Republicans to urge Australia and New Zealand to reaffirm the same Brixet attitude against the Brits themselves by wanting to exit the Australian, and for that matter, the New Zealand, monarchical allegiance from the British monarchy as well.
Whilst, practically speaking, strengthening the economic lifeline with their regional partners within the Asian economic bloc. APEC becomes more essentially important for Australia's wealth development and as an essential economic lifeline.
Brixet, becomes a watershed for attitudinal changes within the South Pacific for the seemingly ineluctable transition towards an Australian republic. Paradoxically, the catalyst may come from the ethnic anxieties with multicultural groups becoming more convinced that ethnic oppression is associated with the present Anglo-Celtic institutional taskmasters oppressing the purportedly institutionally social pariah groups or individuals, like the indigenous cultures of Australia, and the ethnic minority groups within Australian and New Zealand society in general.
Meanwhile, at street level, multiculturalism within Australia and New Zealand becomes a watershed for institutional changes from a bifurcated Black versus White New Zealand and Australian society. Instead, a pluralistic Australian and New Zealand society becomes the realpolitical stasis with separate ethnic and multinational entities competing within a liberal democracy for power resources.
A Black and White Australia, as advocates from the Aboriginal and Anglo-Celtic majority Australian community, is not the realpolitical truth, it is an exaggerated social myth when 98% of the mainstream is pitted against a 2% Black indigenous population. A black versus white Australia is a ludicrous Australian social myth.
In reality, it is not a Black versus white Australia, or 98% of Australia versus 2% Australia, it is competing ethnic and multinational corporate groups vying and competing with each other which is the reality of a liberal democracy such as Australia and New Zealand.
Comparatively speaking, a bifurcated New Zealand social division between a Maori and Pakeha New Zealand in percentage terms is a 75:15 ration which is far from a bi-cultural reality in a bifurcated power conflict. Maori indigenous groups and Aboriginal ethnic groups ignore the reality of a multicultural society when they assume that it is a black versus white conflictual world.
Meanwhile, the present crisis point with multiculturalism is the changing of the cultural and physical landscape of established progressive society. Dynamic changes with newly arrival groups which are very few in number but have a significant impact on xenophobic communities feeling threatened with systemic and dynamic changes to their established communities. The paroxysms from such a conflict of cultural conservatism with social changes with an influx of ethnically new groups has created the obvious cultural clashes.
The global war on terror had ignited an acute xenophobia from right wing conservative reactionary groups endeavouring to preserve and conserve their established power base. They would consider the new threat as eroding their power resources. Universal welfarism, for example, has been taken away due to an increase of population and the established groups are having to diffuse their citizenry democratic rights and privileges to the newly arrival groups. Universal health benefits, universal rights to education, to employment opportunities have been taken away with cheaper de-unionised, ethnically diverse workforce take away jobs for white Anglo-Celtic Australians and New Zealanders.
Nowadays, Multiculturalism, according to the Enoch Powell and the conservative British right wing, mode of thinking, has become synonymous, not with cosmopolitan ethnic restaurants, tourism, and cultural performances, but, with lowly paid second class citizens and now, more threateningly, with religious threats from Jihadists, and even to the extent with the association with the criminally perverseness of rapists, and criminal terrorists, adding fuel to the reactionary responses of a xenophobic hysterical Europe, and British society.
Domestically, in Australia, the Anglo-Celtic majority have simply transplanted this localised British mentality within Britain to local politics. Xenophobic groups become transplanted Brits and would want to Brixet Australia from China and South East Asia if they could unplug Australia from the South Pacific moorings and move Australia next door to Ireland in the Atlantic Ocean. Unfortunately, Australia is geo-politically located in South East Asia and in the South Pacific. It is part of Oceania, despite the fact that the vast majority of Australians are, ethnically, Caucasians and Europeans, they live in the South Pacific region and are included as part of the South Pacific region. Australia is actually a member of the Pacific Forum despite the insipidness associated with the vast majority if Australians disliking the fact that the are geographically located in Oceania and not next door to Britain.
Overall, the Australian official institutions remain the established attitude of the British Empire of old.
However, the pervading attitude of most xenophobic Anglo-Celtic Australians are sourced from the steadfastly Anglophiles and Constitutional Monarchists. It seems ironic that on the opposite of the globe the most staunchly Eurocentric and Anglocentric mindsets can be sourced from the Colonials still holding on to the Apron strings with England. The British Ancien Regime remains reluctant to accept their waning into the imperial history like the Spaniards, Dutch, Portugese, French and Germans, and, further back, to the Ancient Romans, or the wanna-be Imperialists within the ninteenth and Twentieth century from Napoleon, Kaiser, Hitler and Hirohito, the British, have lasted for only a couple of centuries, but, they have had the greatest impact worldover with the Pax Anglo-Americana with the United Nations headquarters firmly established in American soil, in New York City.
Evenso, after 1942, however, the British Imperial regime still have endeavoured to hold steadfastly to their waning empire within the Antipodes and with the expectations for a Brixet from the European Union, the same old British paternalistic conceit remains stoic till the end.
With Brixet, the British conservatives would hope to rekindle this past Imperial glory, which is very nostalgic and yet very shortsighted, particularly, in light of the lessons of all Imperial hegemonic powers throughout history, which would reveal to any astute Historian today an imminent future in which the British Empire will well and truly fall into history in the proverbial wax and wane of Empires. There is no need for a Nostradamus, nor having to read into the tea leaves, in foretelling an ineluctable transition of an Australian Republic. It is the institutions of today who will be remembered as being seditious and treasonous in the future.
Tim Tufuga
8th June, 2016.
Former Australian Republican Movement
(Queensland Councillor for ARM 2012)
Source:
1. Remembering the Fall of Singapore, Australian War Memorial, https://www.awm.gov.au/talks-speeches/1942-fall-of-singapore/
2 United Kingdom European Union membership referenda 23rd June, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
3. On this Day, BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/1/newsid_2459000/2459167.stm
No comments:
Post a Comment