Ethnic makeup of Australia

Posted by Andrew L on April 24, 2005, 12:30 AM | #

One persentage group not so mentioned is Middle eastern or Islamic, when they give birth to 10 and even more Newly bread terrorists, we end in a society we have now,The heavy influence of such a ethnic group has changed and reshaped our society, not for the better, Police will not respond to calls, Governments exasibate the problem by shifting policy in favour of this group,peir group change psychy of our youth,Locals are made to leave there homes because of the Islamic uprise, and authorities just tell them move away so not to be tormented, Yep , they realy have thought this problem out, And you wonder why Vigilanti groups will Justify there actions,and it is starting now. The ones so charged with that responsabillity have abandoned it, we have to correct the problem, then dispose of those that created it. We sent our troops to Iraq, there is a greater and More importanr roll in Australia, It is out of control and The Guardians are ignoring and fueling it. LIberal or Labour, not much difference. You payed for it.

Posted by also on April 24, 2005, 01:57 AM | #

the “english” numbers in the USA are almost certainly an enormous undercount.

1) may americans who date to the settler period (pre-1776) define themselves as “american” in the census

2) many amerians who are, say, 1/4 german and 3/4 WASP “mutt” simply put german because that is more salient and stands out against the american background.

if many australians could trace their ancestry back over 300 years to australia they might also start to feel less “english” or “irish” or what not (not to mention that australia still has a british head of state).

Posted by jonjayray on April 24, 2005, 04:29 AM | #

“Also” underestimates the feeling of “Australianness” among Australians.
The data do not indicate any lack of such feeling.  Had that been a question option, practically ALL Australians of British origin would have said they were primarily Australian

Posted by Arcane on April 24, 2005, 06:21 AM | #

JJRay, you said:
Had that been a question option, practically ALL Australians of British origin would have said they were primarily Australian

The same could be said of Americans of British origin, such as myself, since I identify myself as American before I identify myself on an ethnic basis. In fact, I think that’s a pretty common sentiment amongst not just Americans of British-origin, but among most white Americans.

Posted by John S Bolton on April 24, 2005, 06:54 AM | #

Another way to estimate this proportion, is to compare the black percentage in the mid 19th century, ~20%, with that in the mid 20th,~10%. From this one can arrive at the percentage of the white population which is descended mainly from the immigrants of the intervening period, ~50% or less. Some considerable number of these were from the British Isles, directly or indirectly, so that today close to half the population might be assumed to be ancestrally from that region, in their predominant background.

Posted by Stuka on April 24, 2005, 02:15 PM | #

...I identify myself as American before I identify myself on an ethnic basis. In fact, I think that’s a pretty common sentiment amongst not just Americans of British-origin, but among most white Americans.

Why? What does it mean to be “American”?

As a European-American, I have more in common with an Englishman or German or Frenchman or Russian than I do with an African-American in Harlem or an immigrant from Korea who just got his citizenship papers.

We need to question the whole concept of “American” because it means increasingly little today.

Posted by JW Holliday on April 24, 2005, 03:32 PM | #

John,

“Anglo-Saxons are much more influential than the Jews, however:  Americans speak English rather than Hebrew and Protestant Christianity has had far more converts than Judaism. “

Americans speak English rather than Hebrew because the USA was founded by people of British stock, not by Jews.  Since Judaism is *not* a proselytizing religion, and is, despite whatever protestations that may be made, essentially an ethnic (with combined biological, cultural, and historical ties) group using religion as a group strategy, I am not surprised that universalist Christian religions - who actively seek converts - find more of them.

You need to make a more reasonable argument to support your assertion of greater Anglo-Saxon influence - an assertion that is, in my opinion, not true today.

Posted by Svigor on April 24, 2005, 08:49 PM | #

I agree JW, and I’d add that the comparison of each groups solidarity is necessary too.  Pound for pound WASPs are incapable of flexing the kind of political muscle Jews have.

Posted by Andrew L on April 24, 2005, 10:33 PM | #

The one consept that has been Dioluted, was in WW2, in Australia, a certain ethnic group, Italian and Greek, Had sent their son’s of Shaw, so as not to be drafted by Australia, to Defend it’s shaws, They put them on ships and transported them out of Australia, so, If you can conclude poetic Justice, The Japanese Imperial Navy did not descrimminate, and sunk the lot,probably discusseded with such a cowardly act , extra torpedoes, No survivors, These Immigrants will take, Feloniously) the best of what you have to offer, but in times of Adversity, they abandoned the Australian nation, not worth dieing and shedding their blood, This in turn is Justafiable Resentment of Ethnics, certainly not the spirit of Australia, defend your mates at any cost, they ran to save themselves and left others to die, This is a common legacy by Ethnic groups, in the high 80% numbers, so Nationalism is high, but it is not of the hoste nation, Watch your Back. The British colonies have commonality and its built structures, Others want to ride on the road, but do not want to pay for it, at any cost.Respect is Urned, and not much of that about lately.

Posted by Mark Richardson on April 24, 2005, 10:59 PM | #

I’m a bit surprised by John’s figures for Australia. Up to about 1950, the most commonly cited figures show a much higher percentage for Australians of UK origin: about 80% as I recall, with Irish a further 15%, other Europeans 4% (mostly German), and non-Europeans (mostly Aborigines, Chinese) about 1%.

The post WWII migration would have increased the “other European” category significantly (Dutch, German, Italian, Greek), but I would be amazed if the British element was only 35% even in 1981.

Posted by Andrew L on April 24, 2005, 11:15 PM | #

I could only assume Mark, judging by the Welfare bill of 80 odd billion, some one is telling lies about the Imigration make up, If we are nearly all working, then who is getting the wealfare, I think we know the answer to that. And I do not suspect large numbers of Anglo, or British.

Posted by jonjayray on April 25, 2005, 03:48 AM | #

“I agree JW, and I’d add that the comparison of each groups solidarity is necessary too.  Pound for pound WASPs are incapable of flexing the kind of political muscle Jews have.”

Svigor,
You don’t seem to be a bad sort of chap but your paranoia is really running wild there.  Solidarity is the one thing Jews DON’T have.  If you know anything about Israeli politics you must know that.  And by far the most violent critics of Israel are Jews—such as Chomsky.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 25, 2005, 06:08 AM | #

John,

It is a little unfair to let the J question pinch this thread, but you are right about the quarrelsome contest of politics Israel.  How does one accomodate that with the readily observable in-group partialism of Jews in diaspora?  Not difficult, I think.

1. For reasons of history, survival, identity etc they respond to their host out-group’s power with unfailing uniformity but also with extraordinary intellectual aggression.

2. In Israel the dog, still intellectually aggressive, bites its brother.

Posted by jonjayray on April 26, 2005, 09:26 AM | #

Where is Wintermute when you need him?  I was looking forward to lots of furious comments on this thread!

But David, Jews are NOT unified even in the West.  There are furiously conservative Jews (including the neocons) and furiously Leftist Jews (such as Chomsky). And I should tell you about some of the Jewish family disputes I have come across!  Jews are probably the world’s most fractionated people.  They all have different views about practically everything—including Israel and one-another.  You should hear Reform Jews and Hasids talk about one-another!

Posted by JW Holliday on April 26, 2005, 01:56 PM | #

John,

Anecdotal comments about “Jewish family disputes” do not in any way refute the argument that the bulk of organized Jewish groups and influential Jewish individuals - at least in the diaspora - are fairly monolithic when it comes to core issues.

These issues are: the benefits of multiracialism and diversity in western societies, promotion of nonwhite immigration, the importance of Israel’s security, the promotion of liberal secularism in western societies, the promotion of racial integration, and so forth.

There are no doubt individual Jews, of little or no influence, who assert somewhat divergent views on one of more of these topics - the odd Levin or Gottfried or Hart or Chomsky.  So what?  There are also blacks who have genius-level IQs, but that fact does not suggest that one then has to reject the argument that white and black IQs represent significantly different distributions (regardless of the reason one wants to postulate for that).

If Jews are indeed so fractious, then when, praytell, will we see a significant number of prominent and influential Jewish groups and individuals coming out in favor of the sort of actions that will promote western survival?  Where are they?  When will a prominent Jewish-owned newspaper in the USA come out against immigration, or be critical of Israel, or state that Turkey has no business in the EU?  Where is the prominent Jewish-American paleoconservative politician?  Where is the Jewish Pat Buchanan or Tom Tancredo? Where is the ‘right-wing’ version of the ADL, where is a Jewish group supporting western particularism, freedom of association, and ethnic genetic interests for all peoples, not just themselves?

Again: where are they?

Posted by ben tillman on April 26, 2005, 05:32 PM | #

But David, Jews are NOT unified even in the West.  There are furiously conservative Jews (including the neocons) and furiously Leftist Jews (such as Chomsky). And I should tell you about some of the Jewish family disputes I have come across!

The neocons are in no sense conservative. 

But more to the point, difference of opinions regarding strategies for achieving goals does not imply difference of opinions regarding the goals themselves.  For Jews, the overarching goal is the welfare of the Jewish group.  That is not a generalization; that is a definition—a definition applied by the Jewish community itself.  In pursuing this goal, their moral code consists of one precept:  do that which is “good for the Jews”.  In this crucial respect they are united.  And in this respect they are no different from any other organism.

Posted by NEWG on July 11, 2005, 05:18 AM | #

ARE THERE ANY BLACK PEOPLE IN AUSTRALIA?

Posted by Ellis on March 08, 2007, 09:13 AM | #

Half of Americans are White Protestants. Just under a quarter are White Catholics (with some indistinct overlap of White and Hispanic included there.) Less than 2% of Americans are ethnically Jewish, religious or not.  12% are black and 15 plus per cent are Hispanic.  I just wanted to clarify and let you fellows determine if some groups have outsized influence.

Posted by Ellis on March 08, 2007, 09:25 AM | #

The other piece that was misleading in the (slighly off) statistics for Anglo Americans- German immigrants to America came very early and continued very late.  They are by far the largest European group.  German Americans are overwhelmingly Protestant but more to the point, were accepted and assimilated very quickly and thoroughly, Anglicizing their names, etc.  Those that maintained their identity had it largely obliterated through the pressures of nationalism in the two world wars.  Either way, in America, “Anglo-Saxon” has always meant Northern European Protestant.  (English, Scottish, Scots-Irish/Anglo Irish, German, Dutch, Welsh, French, Scandinavian all became part of the Anglo-American cultural group, coalescing around English-American identity.) Now, about that Australian and American habit of genocide…

Posted by Chrissy on November 27, 2008, 03:21 AM | #

I attend Brisbane State High. I am currently working on a history assignment on Australia’s multiculturalism. If any of you are able to answer the following questions, that would be great !

How has Australia’s immigration policy changed since the 1950s?
How has Australia’s cultural make-up changed as a result?
Has the Australian government truly embraced multiculturalism?

Thanks to anyone who helps.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 27, 2008, 04:48 AM | #

Chrissy, might the following Wikipedia article help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy

Here’s a web-site that discusses the matters you inquire about, but you’ll have to use the site’s search feature and do a bit of site-browsing to find exactly what you need:

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/

Posted by silver on November 27, 2008, 05:26 AM | #

Those figures for Italians, Greeks and (especially) Maltese seem greatly over-inflated.  Calculated from the 1980 population, their absolute numbers are all lower today (not just their proportions), and that even though the census allows for multiple selctions on “Ancestry” (meaning part-Italians etc don’t drop out through miscegenation).

Posted by Bo Sears on November 27, 2008, 07:51 AM | #

Ellis remarked above, “English, Scottish, Scots-Irish/Anglo Irish, German, Dutch, Welsh, French, Scandinavian all became part of the Anglo-American cultural group, coalescing around English-American identity.’

Sorry, but that is the line advanced by left-wing racialists who are eager to divide us and to paint some of us as “Northern Europeans” who have become clones of one another.  I imagine President-Elect Obama got the same memo before he referred to his grandmother as “a typical white person.”

Amongst all the diverse white American people our group knows, there is a lively awareness of their ethnicity (Italic, Slavic, Germanic, Gallic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, etc.) and of large chunks of their national origins (French, Poland, Switzerland, Scotland, Greek, etc.), but it is true that this diversity is hated and suppressed by the print and electronic media who seek to portray each of us as “a typical white person.”

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 27, 2008, 10:43 PM | #

Chrissy,

In addition to Fred’s links, try Professor Andrew Fraser, as well.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 28, 2008, 12:18 AM | #

Chrissy,

If you find that you have any questions for Andrew Fraser let me know through the mail button under the header.