The Asianisation of Australia: volume 2, part 1, section 9
Researchers need to be careful of statistics relating to the ethnicity of the Australian
population as there are various ways of measuring their size and strength. Charles Price has
explained the differences:
"There are three principal measures. Unmixed Origin (or "pure origin") refers to persons with no recent ethnic intermixture; someone, say, who has four Croat grand-parents from Split in Dalmatia and who, even though several generations back an Italian seaman landed in Split and married into the family, is accustomed to think of herself as purely Croat. This is a useful measure for assessing the demand for ethnic services (radio, schools, language classes etc.) as persons of unmixed ethnic descent are usually more interested in maintaining the ethnic language and culture than are persons with, say, a Croat father and an Irish-Australian mother.
It is important to compare the differences between these three methods of measuring the Asian-ethnic component of the Australian population:
"The second measure is Total Descent: this shows all persons with any particular ancestry, even if only one-quarter or one-sixteenth; as instance a fifth generation Australian of predominantly Anglo-Celtic origin but one of whose great-great-grandfathers came to Australia from Sweden in the 1820's. Total Descent gives the maximum possible size for any ethnic population and is useful for assessing claims that Australia has 100,000 or 200,000, or more, of any particular ancestry. Because persons of mixed origins are counted in all their ancestral groups the final Total Descent Total greatly exceeds a country's total population.
"The third measure is Ethnic Strength, derived by adding fractions of ancestry. A third generation Australian with two Irish grandparents, one Polish and one Lebanese grandparent, counts as a half in the Irish total, a quarter in the Polish and a quarter in the Lebanese totals. It is basically a genetic measure (and is of interest to epidemiologists and others concerned with genetic characteristics) and shows the strength of any particular ethnic contribution. It is the best measure for comparing the relative strength of the various contributions, and always adds to the total population."(30)
1) "Unmixed". For example; a group of 1000 people, all of whom are half-Asian, will be completely overlooked in a count of "unmixed" Asian-ethnics, even though most Australians would regard them as Asian-ethnics.
2) "Ethnic Strength". For example; a group of 1000 people, all of whom are half- Asian, will only be counted as 500 Asian-ethnics, in a count of the "ethnic strength" of Asian-ethnics, even though most Australians would regard the group as 1000 Asian-ethnics.
3) "Total Descent". The "total descent" measurement of a group of 1000 half-Asians would accurately reflect the count as 1000 Asian-ethnics.
"Unmixed Origin" does not reveal the full extent of the Asian population in Australia as it does not include part-Asians. "Ethnic Strength" likewise does not reveal the full extent, as part-Asians are counted as fractions (for instance, two half-Asians are counted as one Asian). Therefore; the "Total Descent" method of ethnic measurement is the best method, as it enables an accurate estimation of the full extent of the Asian-ethnic component of the Australian population, as using this method includes all of those of Asian descent (including both full-Asians and part-Asians).
Many, or most, politicians and journalists, when discussing the number of Asians in the population, often refer to statistics regarding the "Asian-born". This is simply a devious tactic used to avoid the issue of the actual Asian-ethnic proportion of the population.
In talking about the Asianisation of Australia, the relevant factor is not the proportion of the "Asian-born", but the proportion of Asian-ethnics. As Professor Charles Price has said,
"people aren't interested in the percentage that will be Asian-born in 1991 but in how 'Asian' Australia is going to be. It's a question of how many Asian-looking people there will be as you walk down the street. That the basis on which ordinary people will make their judgments".(31)
To talk only of the "Asian-born" is ridiculous in terms of national ethos and cultural change. To illustrate this, we need only look at Fiji and the major divisions between the native-Fijian population and the massive Asian-ethnic population (in this case, mainly derived from India). While 43.5% of the Fijian population is Indian, most were born there, whilst approximately only 0.04% of the Indian population in Fiji is actually "Asian born". In discussing national identity, to speak of there being only 0.04% "Asian-born" in Fiji is blatantly ridiculous; the relevant point is the proportion of Asian-ethnics in the population, not the proportion of the "Asian-born". The same applies to Australia.(32)
An important section of the Asian-ethnic population in Australia are the part- Asians. Part-Asians are a large part of the Asian-ethnic population (mainly relevant are the half-Asians and quarter-Asians); European Australians would generally view part-Asians as "Asian" (i.e. "Asian-ethnics"), and the part-Asians would generally view themselves as "Asian" or "part-Asian" (i.e. "Asian-ethnics").
These "part-Asians" should be recognised as "Asian-ethnics" by the government (as well as the recognition of the "full-Asians" not born in Asia), for to do otherwise would be highly hypocritical; just compare the government's recognition of the ethnicity status of Aborigines. In a group of 1000 "half-blood" Aborigines (and even another 1000 "quarter-blood" Aborigines), most would be likely to regard themselves ethnically as "Aborigines". By the Government's own definition of Aboriginality, this would generally suffice to regard them as Aborigines. The same applies to the Asian-ethic population; those that would be regarded by the general population as ethnic-Asians should be counted as such in any estimation of the ethnic-Asian population of Australia.
Australians need to be very wary when the media and/or government officials sprout fourth figures of the "Asian-born" population in Australia when being queried on, or discussing the effects of, Asian immigration and Asianisation. Their use of such government figures deliberately avoids the inclusion of Australian-born Asians, part-Asians, and Asians from West Asia. Australians must be distrustful of those who attempt to conceal the true extent of the Asian-ethnic population in Australia.
We can refer to the statement by Philip Ruddock, the Liberal Government's Minister for Immigration, who wrote that "Recently, forecasts by my department, using country of birth data, project the proportion of Asian-born people will be about 7.5 per cent in 2031. Such projections are more useful for public discussion and planning purposes". What Ruddock means is that his figures are "more useful" because they specifically minimise the extent of Asianisation, thus trying not to upset or stir to anger the Australian public.(33)
We can also refer to earlier statements during the Asian immigration "debate" of 1984 whereby various pro-immigration people referred to the Asian population in Australia as being only 2%. Bill Hayden (then Foreign Minister) referred to the Asian population as being 2%, and said that it would rise to only about 4% by the year 2000. In 1985, Professor Jamie Mackie (a pro-immigration advocate, who was active in the Immigration Reform Group in the 1960s) said regarding Hayden's use of the 2% figure that "It seems likely that his statement was intended primarily to reassure people by creating the impression that the Asian proportion of Australia's population will remain so small as to be not at all worrying. While this may have been a necessary and understandable strategy at the time (March 1984), I am not sure that blurring the figures is the best approach on a longer term view... People are likely to feel more uneasy about a double-digit percentage of Asians in our midst than they do about a mere 2 to 4 per cent. But I believe we should begin to get accustomed to it."(34)
The lesson to be learned from this is that many multiculturalists and pro- immigrationists have lied, and will continue to lie, in order to cover-up the extent of the Asianisation of Australia. Expect it to happen continually.
The proportion of Asian-ethnics and other non-Europeans will steadily increase within Australia over the next few decades (and beyond). This massive demographic "invasion", and the accompanying cultural/social changes, will result in the destruction of Australia's national identity, culture, and way of life.
The Asianisation of Australia:
Statistics (Immigration, Ethnicity, and Trade) (Volume 2)
Australian Nationalism Information Database - www.ausnatinfo.angelfire.com