Did Anglo-Australia really exist?

Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, 25 April 2005 01:19.

John Ray recently contributed an article which claimed that in 1981 only 35% of the Australian population were of British origin.

As I mentioned in the comments, I find such a statistic difficult to believe, simply on the basis of my own everyday observations. Furthermore, the statistic needs to be taken seriously because if it were true it would undermine the idea that Australia once had its own distinctive Anglo-Australian (or Anglo-Celtic Australian) identity.

So I googled. I came up with two excellent articles, both from the kind of official sources which I think would satisfy John’s request for citations.

The first article is a detailed study by Australia’s leading demographer Charles Price, published in a Monash University journal. Table 2 is especially good, as it gives an historical comparison of the ethnic makeup of Australia.

What it shows is that in 1947 90% of Australians were of British & Irish descent, with the Irish making up 19% of the total (although a quarter of these were Protestant). A further 6% were from other north-west European countries, bringing the total to 96%. 2% were from southern and eastern Europe, which raises the total to 98%. About 1% were Jewish and the other 1% were mostly Aboriginal.

So, in 1947 there really did exist a homogeneous Australian nation, with 90% of the population drawn from the British Isles and 96% from the north west of Europe.

Of course, if we go forward to 1988 things have changed. Nonetheless, the English and Scottish proportion is still 57% of the total (not the 35% cited by John), the British Isles proportion is still 72%, the north-west European total is 80% and the European total is 92%.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics also asked people to list their own ethnic origins in 1986. The results are a little bit harder to disentagle. However, 41% gave their ethnicity as either English or Scottish and a further 19% gave their ethnicity simply as “Australian”. 7% did not nominate an ethnicity. Again, this result runs against the idea that only 35% of Australians in 1981 were of British origin. In fact, if you add up the three categories and add the 4% who nominated themselves as either Irish or English-Irish you get a total of 71% - which tallies very closely with the figure arrived at by Charles Price.

So I remain sceptical about the figures for the ethnic makeup of Australia cited by John. I am similarly sceptical about the figures he cites for the US.

Tags: Demographics

Comments:

Posted by Drew Fraser on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:00 | #

It is interesting that only 19% would identify themselves as ethnically Australian. Anyone maintaining a sense of shared ethnic identity with the other nations created out of the British diaspora must fly in the face of the relentless campaign by the dereacinated “Australian” state to convince us that the British, the English Canadians and even New Zealanders are “foreigners.”
An important milestone in that campaign was the Citizenship Act of 1948. Up until then Australian nationals were regarded in law as British subjects. After that governments in Oz, Canada, New Zealand and the UK began to build walls around their subject populations-finally stripping the newly-minted citizens of the old white Dominions of their common law status as British subjects.
The consequences of that campaign are especially evident today, Anzac Day, when the state issues an official licence to bash the Pommies, yet again, for their alleged betrayal of the diggers. One would hardly know that thousands of our British cousins also sacrificed their lives in the futile and self-destructive Gallipoli campaign.

Posted by Andrew L on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:26 | #

Well Considering Anzac day, the Population of Anglo would be down, Consider, the many Hundreds of thousands that died in all the wars, only a very small population to draw from, and perhaps like America, a extreamly large portion of Anglo’s Decent people were sent to slaughter, that might have a lot to do with it.Now look at the moronic garbage that have replaced them, the wrong people were slaughtered.That has a very large percentage of the disposition we are in now. and paying dearly for it.

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:25 | #

Interesting that Price’s projection has the European ‘ethnic strength’ falling from 88% in 1999 to 77% in 2025.

I wonder if those Brits and others now fleeing MultiKulti Europa for Down Under are aware of this trend.

Posted by Stuka on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:13 | #

Family members recently returned from a two-month tour of Australia and NZ. While they had nice things to say about the whites—who by all acounts were incredibly friendly—they were shocked at the number of Asians, particularly in the cities. I don’t think most Americans are aware of how many Asians currently infect the land Down Under.

Interestingly enough, there were a number of Asians on their tour group, and they told me that the behaviour of these individuals reminded them of real estate shoppers, or colonialists; it was almost as if these Asians were “scouting out” the region for further settlement.

Posted by jonjayray on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:19 | #

Australia is now about 10% Asian—very pleasant people though a bit hard-driving for my relaxed ways. They are overwhelmingly law-abiding, family-oriented, hard-working, polite and lovers of education—ideal citizens

Posted by Mark Richardson on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:01 | #

Since John roughly represents the Australian Liberal Party point of view you can see why our current Liberal Government has no qualms about such large rates of Asian migration into Australia.

Why not raise the number of Asian immigrants to record numbers if all that is to be said about the new arrivals is that they are “ideal citizens”? For John Howard, as for John Ray, this is probably seen as nation building.

Of course, for those of us who want to preserve our own ethny, things appear rather differently. The arrival of large numbers of Asians can only make the survival of our own ethny, in other words our own traditional nation, more difficult, no matter how hard-working and law-abiding the foreign immigrants are.

Posted by Stuka on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:38 | #

As I keep telling my mainstream conservative friends who praise supposedly hard-working, “high IQ” Asians, the fact that some Asian immigrants are successful does absolutely nothing for white Americans. Sure, the Asians themselves benefit—but whites and white society do not.

Incidentally, there was a story in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday about a Chinese immigrant spy in Silicon Valley who has been caught downloading software and passing it on to a Taiwanese software company at which he was applying for a job.

Another example of the great harm inflicted by Asian immigration.

Posted by Andrew L on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:13 | #

I already think that is the Agenda, Thats why China seems to be the destination for all Polititions here,Consider conditions of labour there in China, And Australia, only the braindead would consider compatible, John is nearly 100% with most Asians, but the Education is driven by Parents, and selective in that they are Coached only in the methods of gaining positions in Special Advanced Schools. If you look at Government policy of the last 30 odd years, hard not to conclude that political movements deliberat sabotage of Australias Future,in every way. The one aspect of Asianic life is, Overwhealming domminant, not to the level of Islamic movements, but Anglo Australians are being squeezed out, Deliberatly, the template of the future is on view, and it is not looking good.Heads in the sand will not help.Certainly not limited to Australia ether. Wake up people.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:13 | #

“but Anglo Australians are being squeezed out, Deliberatly” (—Andrew L.)

The key word in Andrew’s post here is “deliberately.” Everyone understands what will be the inevitable result if prominent persons don’t come out and say in crystal-clear words and sentences—no obfuscation—that immigration of non-whites has to be capped at some point or else whites will be submerged and their countries taken over by non-whites.

Will whites be submerged and their country taken over if non-whites amount to ten percent of the population? No. Twenty percent? No. Fifty percent? Getting there.

Will whites be submerged and their country taken over if non-whites amount to ninety percent of the population? Yes.

OK then, may we expect from prominent persons a crystal-clear statement that we must not allow the non-white proportion to reach ninety percent? That much would seem obvious. Can we at least get that? The answer is no, we won’t get it. We can find it reasonable all we want. We can “expect” it all we want: “Expecting ain’t getting,” to paraphrase a common expression. We’re not going to get it.

We won’t get such a statement. We’ll get no statement as to any upper limit on non-white immigration, although everyone, even a four-year-old child, sees what lies in store, sees what is absolutely inevitable. The plan is clearly, therefore, a deliberate one to replace the white race: what any four-year-old can see any adult can see.

This is all being done coldly, calculatedly, deliberately.

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:08 | #

They are also in superabundant supply, close to 3.5 billion at the last count. India alone is projected to increase its population by 489 million by 2050.

How many would you like sent your way?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:22 | #

John Ray seems to think if a race is pleasant, law-abiding, family-oriented, hard-working, polite, and education-loving, such as, let’s say, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, upper-class educated Arabs, educated Filipinos, educated, refined African Negroes like Kofi Anan or Nelson Mandela, or high-caste Indian Subcontinentals, for example, there can be no legitimate objection by whites to their own race getting changed into one of these others. John Ray can’t see a reason on earth why a white person wouldn’t want the traditional white race of his country changed into one of these other perfectly good ones: “Why wouldn’t anyone want their race changed into them? That doesn’t make sense. Anyone ought to want his race changed into one of these others!,” is what he seems to think. A corollary of that incomprehension on his part is to interpret any manifestation of hesitancy by a white in regard to having his nation’s race changed as disdain for the race it’s to be changed into: the hesitant white person must view that other race as unpleasant and so on, otherwise he’d want his race changed into it—so, John thinks if he can persuade the hesitant white person of the contrary view of this other race—that it’s not “unpleasant,” “lazy,” and so on—all the hesitancy must evaporate as he welcomes the disappearance of his own race down the memory hole and its replacement by this other one. Thus, according to John it can only be due to a misunderstanding that, let’s say, some Luxemburger would rather not see the population of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg (which is a homogeneous sub-race of the Germans, by the way) changed completely from white to _________ (fill in the blank with any race that’s law-abiding, family-oriented, hard-working, and so on). John just can’t imagine any other way to interpret the reluctance of this hypothetical Luxemburger to welcome his country’s traditional race being changed entirely from what it’s always been to, let’s say, Vietnamese, and he feels if he can just convince the Luxemburger of the fine qualities of the Vietnamese race he’ll change his mind and enthusiastically welcome that change. That’s why when people say they’d rather not see Oz’s predominantly Anglo population transformed racially into some non-white race John’s response is always to start pointing out the good qualities of the race it’s to be changed into. Blind to the fact that that race’s good qualities are completely irrelevant, he thinks the enumeration of those qualities will completely change the hesitant Aussies’ minds.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:36 | #

“We’ll get no statement as to any upper limit on non-white immigration, although everyone, even a four-year-old child, sees what lies in store, sees what is absolutely inevitable.” (—from my comment above)

Signs the Brits at least may be emerging from their 40-year liberalism-induced stupor (emerging ever so slowly, I’ll grant—but hey I’ll take what I can get!).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:56 | #

Dan Dare asks John Ray,

”[Asians may be overwhelmingly law-abiding, family-oriented, hard-working, polite, and lovers of education—ideal citizens, but t]hey are also in superabundant supply, close to 3.5 billion at the last count. India alone is projected to increase its population by 489 million by 2050. How many would you like sent your way?”

John doesn’t answer, so I’ll answer for him, if I might—he’d see no objection whatsoever (certainly no theoretical objection whatsoever) to so many of them being “sent his way” that the Australian population would be replaced with them, the way California’s has with Mexicans thanks to the open-borders policy of Clinton and Bush.

Sorry, but I believe that’s an accurate statement of his position.

In other words, if John slept 20 years like Rip van Winkle and awoke to find Australia’s whites had been replaced with Chinamen, Indian Subcontinentals, or some mixture of the two—with only the odd white here or there as some sort of tolerated minority—he’d find that perfectly OK. It’s like Mark Steyn: if Steyn slept like Rip van Winkle and awoke to find Europe had been transformed from majority white Christian to majority Arab Moslem he’d see nothing whatsoever wrong with that—it’d be perfectly, one-hundred-percent fine with him.

Of course, Steyn’s Jewish, and lots of Jews have this attitude toward white Christianity that it’s always been their nemesis, so maybe that’s his excuse—what you’ve always felt threatened or annoyed by, you won’t exactly shed too many tears to see done away with.

What’s John Ray’s excuse, though?

Posted by Andrew L on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:29 | #

You almost described what you see when we are off to work here Fred, Not many Anglo whites, The Immigration figures so posted are fairyland figures,. because I can tell you, unless German, Scandenavian or generaly are black bronz, or Asian, Predominantly ARAB, for the wealfare only and a foot in the door for the take over, there are certainly are not many white people around.Or not as many as they proport. I realy have not seen them, but then again, they are locked up in their houses frightened to come out, because of the crime rate and Assaults , murders Rape, Roberies, car theft, Ram rades, never ending.The only right of defence here now is DIE, the Muslims rule the streets un challenged.And are to ridd the streets of the Infadel’s , aided and abeted by our own Government, State, And Federal, then they sell us off to China,The time is approaching when Australia will have its first Civil war, counting down the days.This one will be the mother of all battles, We want our Country back and be rid of the Occuping Forces created by leftitude, And in the words of Mahummad, They and the Leftoids will die a agonising death. ha I wish.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:51 | #

Fred,

John Ray favours decent law abiding citizens. Nothing wrong with that.

More here.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:59 | #

Oh, look what I found: another one of John Ray’s ideal citizens!

Oh and here’s another!

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:02 | #

And another! And another!

You can’t get more law abiding than that!

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:20 | #

Oh, here’s a case of bank fraud! Dear me!

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:23 | #

Oh and here’s a real life hero from Time Magazine!

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:26 | #

Some more potential citizens for the anglosphere - what a law abiding bunch!

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:30 | #

Oh here’s more! A proverbial can of worms I say, dear john!

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:31 | #

Here’s more!

When John Ray says law abiding, he really means it!

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:33 | #

Even the Scots aren’t spared here!

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:37 | #

Here’s another example of an education loving people!

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:36 | #

John Ray,

Why does India (full of law abiding Indians) have so much corruption?

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:39 | #

More here. Funny John never noticed it even though he’s been to that country several times!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:50 | #

Like John, I happen to like Subcontinentals quite a bit, both Hindu and Moslem, but the ones I and certainly also John are aquainted with belong for the most part to a certain milieu. Phil is absolutely right to take John’s implicit claim of broad Subcontinental national/ethnocultural law-abidingness at face-value and question it, linking such observations as this:

“In India, the giving and taking of bribes have become part of the order of nature. The notion of the ethical slides effortlessly into that of the practical — how to get by in everyday life — and many things become quite alright. Yet this mix of corruption and apathy could be lethal, and in these situations taking a bribe suddenly becomes an act of brutality. Two children were knocked down fatally by a lorry trying to speed away from an extortionist policeman. There is dispute as to whether heavy vehicles are allowed on that road. But what matters is that this vehicle was stopped by a policeman, and witnesses claim that the negotiation between him and the driver suggests the usual demand of money. A carload of people were killed in January when a traffic constable pocketed two rupees and let a truck into a no-truck zone, where it collided with a taxi.”

Their society over there is riddled with corruption at every level, and a country that invites large numbers of them to stay will soon find it has imported their habits and traditions of corruption along with themselves: here‘s what the welcoming of large numbers of foreigners from these high-corruption societies did to the integrity of elections in the English city of Birmingham (see if you can spot one white face in the photo accompanying the article—you can’t: they’re all Subcontinentals):

“A high court judge ruled today that there had been ‘widespread fraud’ surrounding the election of six Labour party councillors in Birmingham in last year’s local elections. Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as an election commissioner, said he was satisfied vote-rigging had occurred in the run up to the June ballot. [...] ‘Anybody who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic [...]’ “

England, traditionally known the world over for the integrity of its elections, is now—thanks to excessive incompatible immigration—obliged to cope with a level of electoral fraud in its great cities that would disgrace a banana republic, according to this judge.

What I favor is the preservation of races whose members don’t wish them extinguished, and therefore I oppose race-replacement immigration whether from corruption-riddled or corruption-free societies. Either way, I don’t want my race replaced. But if John makes an issue of claiming law-abidingness as sort of a Subcontinental or Chinese national characteristic it’s right to question that exactly as Phil has done.