We all know about how "Advance Australia Fair" was first performed in the middle of a outbreak of race riots, right?
As @LukeLPearson points out here, the cosmetic change of one word is pretty pathetic.
But we've genuinely forgotten the context in which the song was written: an outbreak of anti-Chinese violence in 1870s Sydney, which ultimately led to Federation.
On the adjoining column is an account of an incident the same week when two well-dressed men in black coats and white shirt-fronts brutally attacked a Chinese man in Essex Street in the Rocks with a hammer:
This wasn't an isolated incident. In fact, racist anti-Chinese agitation in November 1878 in Sydney was a crucial turning point in Australia's Federation as a unified country.
There had been periodic race riots against Chinese miners on the goldfields of Victoria and Queensland since the 1850s but the 1878 Seamen's Strike was the first time this came to urban Australia.
The Seamen's Union started agitating against the Australasian Steam Navigation Company in July 1878 about its hiring of Chinese labourers as ship crew. By November it had turned into a mass strike.
There was very serious unrest. After a meeting in Hyde Park on 4 December a few days after "Advance Australia Fair" debuted, a mob of 2,000 people carrying torches attempted to burn down a Chinese-owned business and attacked people in the street:
The Sydney Evening News edition reporting another early performance of "Advance Australia Fair" in early December 1878 records anti-Chinese meetings in Bathurst, Mudgee, Goulburn, Wellington and Brisbane:
The Seamen's Strike was arguably the start of the union movement in Australia. It also led to 1881 legislation restricting Chinese migration into New South Wales.
The reluctance of most states to pass such legislation in line with NSW and Victoria was one of the driving forces behind Federation.
Read the original four-verse text of the song – with its lines about "English soil and fatherland" and promises to "rouse to arms" against "foreign foe" — and consider the race riots that were playing out in the same city when it was first performed.
There aren't many good national anthems IMO, but that history does leave a particularly bad taste in my mouth, regardless of how much the lyrics are cleaned up.
One thing I didn't quite make clear here: While "Advance Australia" was a common patriotic motto throughout most of the 19th century meaning "let's develop this country", "Advance Australia *Fair*" is a very unique twist that's specific to this song.
"Fair" is an ambiguous word.
It could just mean "beautiful", as in "In Dublin's fair city, where girls are so pretty".
It could mean "egalitarian", as in "the Aussie fair go".
Or it could mean "blonde-haired and blue-eyed".
I think the song's longevity owes a lot to the fact that it doesn't quite commit to any of those meanings, so it can be read as celebrating environmental beauty and fairness rather than as a racist paean to northern European racial purity.
But again, think about it in the context of those race riots going on at the time the song was first presented.
It's not just saying "Advance Australia", it's advocating a particular subset of that vision, "Advance Australia *Fair*".
Ah Toy, whose factory was almost set ablaze by "larrikins", wasn't "fair" in terms of blonde hair and blue eyes.
And I'm pretty sure the Seamen's Union didn't think it was "fair" that steamship companies employed Chinese sailors at below-union rates.
In all three original verses expurgated from the cleaned-up official anthem, the idea of Australia as specifically *British* is absolutely explicit.
"Fair" only occurs in one other place, in the line "From English soil and fatherland, / Scotia and Erin fair".
This 1878 race riot was a founding moment for Australia as a nation, for the country that introduced the White Australia policy as one of its first laws after Federation. "Advance Australia Fair" was an anthem for that movement.
"Fair" is sort of ambiguous, and shorn of its original context I don't think most read it as a racial epithet these days.
But isn't another word for that sort of ambiguity, that sort of plausible deniability, a "dog whistle"? Flashing OK signs is ambiguous, too.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Before 2009 of course the destination of choice for BoP surplus funds was U.S. Treasuries. 2019 clearly does break that trend too at ~0.75% of the BoP surplus going into BRI projects.
But the decline in 2018 was really pretty much in line with the previous decade. In fact a higher share of the surplus went to BRI that year than in 2015, when 4x the dollar amount was invested.
That to me looks like sampling bias of some sort, or maybe survey response changes such as whether you consider making dinner to be "childcare" or not. Perhaps also something to do with the decline of domestic service?
I don't want to look like a feckless parent, but did the average parent in Denmark in 1965 really spend no more than ~10 minutes a day "washing, feeding, preparing food, putting to bed, supervising and playing with children"?
Survey of recent studies shows prevalence of Internet Gaming Disorder of around 2% among children and adolescents, so you're probably looking at 3 million addicts among a 150 million active-user base.
Obviously you can get IGD playing any game, but most games aren't in the business of encouraging addictive behaviours in children as part of their revenue model.
There's a remarkable (and, I suspect, lucrative) incuriosity about where "engagement" ends and "addiction" begins.
Future generations are going to regard it as really odd that during the 2010s — a decade that cracked the century-old dominance of thermal power and internal combustion engines — one of the Big Ideas was that technological progress was over.
They'll regard it as even odder when they're told the main cited exceptions to the progress-is-dead rule were a taxi-booking app and another one using old techniques from the slot machine industry to make our phones more addictive.
One thing that I think capitalists tend to misunderstand about capitalism is that when it's working it's really hard to make much of a profit.
Solar panel makers increasing shipments 40% a year but getting single-digit profit margins is what effficient capitalism looks like!