Talk:Arthur Calwell/Archive 1

Untitled

Furthermore: Is there any source for whether he spoke Cantonese or Mandarin? I have seen claims for both. Another one to dig up... 198.208.13.221

I have edited this: Calwell is remembered for the misquotation "Two Wongs don't make a White", originally made as a bad joke in parliament about two brothers named Wong and a Liberal Party MP named White but it has since been interpreted as a criticism of Asian immigration and is the only thing for which Calwell is remembered by a large proportion of Australians due to the fact that it is often quoted by leftists who have only superficial historical understanding.

to this:

Calwell is best remembered for the misquotation "Two Wongs don't make a White". This was originally made as a bad joke in parliament about two brothers named Wong and Liberal Party MP, White. It has since been interpreted as a criticism of Asian immigration.

..that is, until I edit it again with some references...have some patience, cheers. 198.208.13.221 08:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The entry did not reflect how Calwell is know in contemprory Australian society, so I have made some changes.

Feel free to revert them if you wish.

Thankyou. I have done so. Adam 09:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article says that Evatt and Calwell disliked each other even though Calwell's autobiography says that he had an affection for him.--The Shadow Treasurer 29 June 2005 00:35 (UTC)

He said that after Evatt was dead. De mortuis nil nisi bonum etc. In life they didn't like each other at all. In 1951 when Chifley died Evatt told Calwell, "I didn't want you as my Deputy Leader," to which Calwell replied, "That's OK Doc, I didn't want you as Leader." Adam 29 June 2005 01:12 (UTC)

Calwell's most famous public statement on Immigration Policy was this appalling criticism of Asian immigration to Australia: "Two Wongs don't make a White."

Why on earth is this quote not in the article? If anything, it is that quote which Calwell will be remembered for. Ambi 05:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That and his assertion that some of the migrant communities in Perth "live on the smell of an oily rag and breed like flies". Snottygobble 05:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As I have explained here several times, the "two Wongs" remark was not a "criticism of Asian immigration to Australia", of which there was none at the time he made it. It was a joke about two brothers called Wong and a Liberal MP called Tom White. It was not the wisest of jokes but it is very unfair to use it out of context. I have not seen the second quote, and I would like to see a source for it. Adam 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "if anything, it will be that quote which Calwell will be remembered for." It therefore should be mentioned in the article, albeit in a way that tags the common interpretation of it as a misunderstanding.

A google search turns up mentions of Calwell's "oily rag" comment in Hansard and AFR, among others, thus confirming the basic accuracy of the quote. The statement was apparently made in May 1979, but I've failed to identify a primary source. Snottygobble 06:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Calwell had been dead for six years in 1979. I want to see a primary source please.
  • Sorry, it was May 1972. Not a chance; I have better things to do, like writing articles on obscure WA politicians that no-one but me cares about.

• The reason that Calwell continues to be remembered only for that remark is that superficial leftists with no historical understanding continue to quote it all the time. Just because it's the only thing they can remember about Calwell from their half-forgotten Australian History 101 lectures doesn't mean they should inflict their ignorance on the rest of the world. Adam 06:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Bugger. Can't we find a verifiable, NPOV way of saying

    Calwell said "Two Wongs don't make a White" as a bad joke about two brothers named Wong and a Liberal MP named White but it has since been interpreted as a criticism of Asian immigration and nowadays is the only thing for which Calwell is remembered by a large proportion of Australians due to the fact that it keeps being quoted by superficial leftists with no historical understanding."?

  • Snottygobble 07:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems a perfectly NPOV statement to me. Adam 07:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam, Calwell's infamous statement was in reference to whether a person (Wong) of Chinese descent, who had been in Australia for 20 years should be made a resident. Earlier in the speech he refers to the individuals sent back to Malaya. I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that this phrase should not be interpreted as "a criticism of Asian immigration". Now his punning may be dire, it may have been a reference to Balaclava member, White, but it still does not distract from the basic premise of his arguement. I am interested in any rebuttal or additions, as I think getting this correct on the Calwell page is important. Thanks, 138 08:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Source, please. Adam 10:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean your earlier statement regarding superficial leftists and poorly remembered history lessons was not based on having Calwell's speech readily at hand?

Come on. This isn't relevant. And the speech isn't a source for that anyway! :) Slac speak up! 05:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

???Come on??? Adam made an flippant comment in the article and I replied in kind in the discussion page...I am endeavouring to get this part of the Calwell entry right. As in: based on the actual words. The interpretation (to avoid a revert or edit war)is probably best left to the reader. Hence, why I have tried to leave the article itself alone. Cheers, 138 05:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Source: "Well May We Say: the speeches that made Australia". I couldn't find anything on the net. So the bookshop was the next-best source. Once I have a copy, I can transcribe it here. This is why I haven't touched the article yet - don't want to rely on paraphrasing. If anyone can get to the primary source, please link it on here, so we can discuss prior to loading anything up. thanks, 138 03:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Can anyone get their hands on Calwell's "infamous" speech? Ref: Hansard 2/12/47.... 198.208.16.221 00:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I shouldn't call it a speech. It was a response during question time. 198.208.16.221 00:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"The [deportation] policy which I have just mentioned relates to evacuees who came to Australia during the war. This Chinese is said to have been here for twenty years, and obviously, therefore, is not a wartime evacuee. Speaking generally, I think there is some claim for him to be regarded as a resident of Australia, and I have no doubt his certificate can be extended frm time to time as it has been extended in the past. An error may have been made in his case. The gentleman's name is Wong. There are many Wongs in the Chinese community, but I have to say - and I am sure that the Honourable Member for Balaclava [Hon Thomas White] will not mind me doing so - that "two Wongs do not make a White"." Hansard, 2 December 1947, 2948 Adam 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Adam, what's the story here? Loading up the page with paragraphs of justification for Calwell's crass comment. Was he somehow important to your faction of the Labor party? The very basis of this comment which you so lightly pass off as merely a joke, the very root of it, is the pun on the names of White and Wong. OK, it does not "prove" Calwell's racism, but it is a pretty clear indication of his mindset. Also, since when did the fact that something was a "mainstream" political view make it OK? That line of thinking allows for some nice justification for some pretty nasty regimes. I plan to further clean this up. Right now it is rather pathetic. 138 08:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Adam, It would appear that you plan to revert whatever I modify on this page in order to ensure it matches the official Labor line. The plan here was to just leave the 'infamous' quote in full, with some minor explanations. The whole section on AC and racism just reads as an attempt to justify some pretty appalling attitudes. Attitudes shared by both AC and the ALP. Once again, do you actually believe that alignment with 'mainstream' view jusitifies a racist policy? 138 03:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The mainstream view doesn't justify them. It's just that people these days would inappropriately slap "racist" on Calwell (I'm sure you'd love to) and he would be dismissed and hated unjustifiably because of that. Calwell held no hatred or antipathy towards non-europeans and this needs to be properly explained to avoid the machinations of people like yourself. michael ^talk 04:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Since all that many people know about Calwell is that he said "Two Wongs don't make a White," I think it is appropriate that this matter be explained in some detail, including Calwell's own explanation about what he said and why. For the record, I don't find it particularly convincing either, but fairness dictates that it appear. My interest here is as a historian, not as an ALP member - I don't deny that the ALP has a history of racism and have no interest in covering that up. But I am also not prepared to have Calwell damned out of hand on the basis of that remark alone. I wrote that section carefully and after fully researching the quotation's history. So, no, I won't allow someone as obviously ideologically motivated as you to alter it. Adam 04:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael and Adam, I agree that Calwell shouldn't be damned out of hand because of the one quote he tends to be remembered for. I just don't it should buried under the poor justifications (mainstream views!) presented. Funny that you both accuse me of idealogical motivations. What are yours? I am motivated by the principle a calling a spade a spade. WAP and racially restricted immigration - not racist?? come on.

Michael, nice innuendo. What are people "like myself" like? Until I started pressing/searching for the full quotation, this page did not contain the all important quote (even now it's hidden at the bottom, under ACs post hoc justifications). Only snide remarks.

Adam, given that you appear to believe you own this page, why not add some historical value rather than merely attempting a snow job. There is plenty out there on AC's huge contribution to post-war migration. Detailing that would be the best way to provide some balance. In the meantime, I will place any suggested alterations in here. 198.208.16.221 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC) In the spirit of Assume Good Faith, how about we rename the section "Calwell and Immigration". This can cover his policies, Australian attitudes (there you go, some concilliation on the tyrrany of "mainstream views", and the great success of post-war immigration, of which AC can be considered the architect. I would be glad to contribute. 198.208.16.221 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC) aka 138 who can't log in for some reason....

When you become a registered Wikipedian, and stop making stupid and offensive insinuations about other editors' motives, I will be happy to discuss this matter with you. Adam 07:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The "offensive" insinuations came from both sides, Adam. That is obvious. Yet you continue to throw insults after an attempt at reconcilliation. Not a good start, really. If it stops, I will start on the page. Deal? 138 01:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why the insistence on placing Calwell's justification prior to the actual quote. It appears messy and backwards. Any thoughts from the contributors rather than the constant reverts? 198.208.16.221 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)