 
# Hidden Footprints of Unity:

beyond tribalism and towards a new Australian identity

Raja Arasa Ratnam

Smashwords Edition

Copyright © 2013 by Raja Arasa Ratnam

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission.

The contents of this work including, but not limited to, the accuracy of events, people, and places depicted; opinions expressed; permission to use previously published materials included; and any advice given or actions advocated are solely the responsibility of the author, who assumes all liability for said work and indemnifies the publisher against any claims stemming from publication of the work.
**Raja Arasa Ratnam** , a Hindu and Christian ex-Malaysian Australian, has lived in Australia for more than half a century. He has participated fully in Australian civil society, and at leadership level. His work and social life have taken him across almost all levels of the Australian people and a variety of industries and occupations. He has lunched with a governor general, and shared the head table with state governors and federal ministers — at different times of course. He has dealt officially with captains of industry and commerce, senior public officials and ethnic community leaders. In spite of this highly intensive interactive community life, he has not lost himself culturally.

His core values, formed in his youth in Malaysia, have remained with him. A bulwark in his early years in the slipstream of a weakening White Australia ethos, his 'Asian values' perspective has enabled him to chart the waves of the sociological changes engulfing his nation of adoption, without being drowned by the current. After living as a societally marginal person for more than half a century and near his meeting with his Maker, he has felt the urge to leave to posterity his vision of the inter-connectedness of humankind. A self-confessed workaholic, he continues to write; and to play tennis on a regular basis. His previous book _'Destiny Will Out'_ was reviewed favourably by academics, significant organisations such as the Centre for Independent Studies, and individuals in four countries. Two other books, ' _The Karma of Culture'_ (about the ubiquity of culture in immigrant-receiving nations), and ' _The Slippery Slope'_ (about the deterioration of the family in Australia) are in preparation.

### ENDORCEMENTS

of Hidden Footprints of Unity

Chapter 4—Which Way to the Cosmos?

"I find the concepts in _Hidden Footprints of Unity_ most appealing, coming as they do from an agile mind which has managed to embrace cultures usually seen as competitive, or even enemies. This book should prove a precious contribution to mutual understanding."

— **James Murray, SSC, recently retired Religious Affairs Editor,** _The Australian_

Chapter 5—Peering into the Void

"As for your writing, it takes us out of our norms, our comfort zones, and reminds the reader that what we assume is objective historical reality is often mere permeable ideology, an arbitrary sense of order imposed upon the flux of life."

— **Paul Sheehan, Columnist,** _Sydney Morning Herald_ **and renowned author.**

Chapter 2—The power of pigmentation

"The value of Chapter 2 lies in its use of personal experience of living in Australia. One is struck by the author's sincerity and, at times, magnanimity in recounting the lack of tolerance at the hands of colleagues and acquaintances."

— **Jerzy Zubrzycki, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, ANU**

Chapter 6—The end of tribalism

"No question is more likely to provoke a quarrel between friends than some aspect of population policy. Are there too many Australians? Are the ones we have the right kind? Raja Ratnam is doubly privileged to reflect on such matters. He was a Malayan Hindu arrival when White Australia prevailed. By the 1980s, he was a senior public servant dealing with high policy.

His comments strike me as contrary and contradictory. He can be as anachronistic in his portrayal of Aussie customs as he is penetrating in his glimpses into how all Australians have managed the personal strains of living in a new place with even newer-comers. He is at his most perplexing when retelling his professional involvement with immigration policies. No one will read through this chapter without crying out "Too right" before having to stop themselves slamming the book shut with a shout of "What rot".

Yet his retrospect and his prognosis are conveyed in a congenial voice, one that should contribute more to the sense of communal responsibility that he champions. Meanwhile, his neo-Liberalism seems set to demolish what Australia retains of these values.

— **Humphrey McQueen, historian and renowned author**

Dedicated to my grandchildren –

who know not the boundaries of culture or see any skin colour
"What would have happened to this life If I had not accepted you?

As the ups and downs carry me far from shore, You become my rudder and I swim across fearlessly.

With you at the helm, I do not fear the waves."

— Paramahansa Satyananda Saraswati

### Preface

**A** fter living as a societally marginal person, for more than half a century, in a country in which I had not chosen to live, and near my meeting with my Maker, I feel the urge to leave to posterity my vision of the inter-connectedness of humankind. My vision is reflective of both my adult life in Australia and that acculturating period of two decades in multicultural Malaya (now Malaysia and Singapore). Naturally, my perceptions were conditioned by my life as a demeaned colonial subject, yet uplifted by the metaphysics of Hinduism, and leavened by the subtle impacts of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural communities learning to live with one another.

Deposited by Destiny in a strange mono-cultural, mono-lingual, mono-chromatic nation which displayed contradictory attitudes towards fellow humans (derived from a misguided perception of the significance of skin colour), I have observed and analysed my fellow Australians whilst adapting, in a substantially contributory fashion, to my new home. This record focuses on the realities of life in the two principal areas of human significance: inter-community (especially black/white) relations, and the universal search for the Creator. Commencing with a look at that strange sensitivity to skin colour by most adult whites I have encountered, my record moves initially onto that rather weird competitive urge displayed by mere mortals in their search for the Divine, and then onto that understandable desire by one and all to peer into the Void of the future. Finally, it touches upon the issues of a divisive tribalism, and the imperatives of an evolving new Australian national identity.

I naturally write as one whose predecessors sought to be free, both politically and culturally. The values which formed me in Asia obviously filter my perceptions and comments. As can be expected, my exposure to Australia's institutions, social mores and values has imposed yet another filter. I have participated fully in civil society — and continue to do so. I have worked for governments and in the private sector. I have had substantial exposure to many leaders in the latter sector, through my work in the public sector. Both as a private citizen and as a public official, I have dealt with a very wide range of immigrants and their leaders. I have lunched with a governor-general (as a guest in Government House), and been an invited guest and speaker in the company of state governors and federal ministers. As a public official, I had dealt with federal ministers and state public officials at the highest level.

How did this happen? I was simply fortunate. Or, was it the hand of Destiny? Who am I to know? What matters to me is that we, the Australian people, in all our diversity, are collaborating together to produce a deserved wonderful future. We should soon be colour blind. We should also be proudly presenting an integrated Australian culture.

### Introduction

The East transits the West

"Australia is a huge rest home where no welcome news is ever wafted on to the pages of the worst newspapers in the world" — Germaine Greer

**I** was formed as a Hindu in a traditional Asian environment, where the extended family, the clan, and the tribe form the lacunae into which the individual is placed. My people were also migrants, seeking a materially improved life. Tribally, we are part of yet another diaspora. This was influenced in part by European colonisers and the political actions of an un-Buddha-like tribal priesthood. The former, with hoity-toity mein, pretended to be civilising us, and teaching us how to govern ourselves, whilst simply exploiting us and our resources. The latter continue to represent the worst aspect of tribalism, especially when deeply imbued with institutional religion.

Living in another Asian environment was not a very great strain for us Asian migrants, apart from the initial difficulties of communication. We all prayed to the same Creator, with the same objectives. The manner of praying was varied, but the priesthood on all sides was not fussed by the differences. We ate the same foods, with some small exceptions reflecting cultural taboos or prejudices; but the culinary styles did remain divergent for about a generation. We had comparable values about life and death, and the way we related to fellow humans and to our Creator. As cultural assimilation was not required of us, social traditions were retained. We believed in our priests, the tribal elders and other wise people, or those who displayed the marks of having been touched by God.

We naturally waited for the day the unloved or hated alien oppressor would leave us to recover our freedom and rights, as well as our dignity and self-respect. We would govern ourselves as we saw fit, without being coerced into political and other institutional structures which suited more the retreating ex-colonial. My people are still endeavouring to do this, even in the politically independent nations of Asia, because of the new form of white man colonialism, viz. eco-colonialism. To be governed badly or ineffectively in freedom is surely better then being ruled in subjugation!

Living in the West is a totally different matter. White people are not as receptive of coloured immigrants. This is because of their recent history of colonisation. That sense of superiority of skin colour, religion, mode of living, and technology, derived from a few centuries of armaments-based domination, continues. This is not to deny that, as individuals, many, many, Asians have been accepted in white nations, with considerable social equality and opportunities for material progress — but, often subject to some unspoken upper limits. The success of such integration depends upon one's worth, skills, accent, codes of conduct, and modes of dress. Upholding divergent cultural _practices_ can, however, delay acceptance.

Experiencing colour sensitivity and cultural disdain at the hands of the common people was surprising to me when I arrived in Australia at the age of nineteen. I had grown up in a tolerant multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multicultural nation-in-the-making, then under the control of the British. The earlier generations clearly co-existed, in the main. Yet we co-operated and communicated as best we could. The latter generations are now one nationality, almost one people — no matter what certain Australian media people might say. Limited by their own colonial heritage and their cultural preference for an individualism devoid of any tribal affinities, these media people may have some difficulty in accepting the Asian people's preference for their ancient tribal values. I also do believe that there is more tolerance in my countries of origin — Malaysia and Singapore (then Malaya) — to differences in faith and associated cultural values than I discern in Australia. Since tolerance can be little more than indifference, true tolerance exists when two or more large ethnic or cultural communities relate to one another with mutual respect and, preferably, as equals.

After more than half a century of a highly participatory community life in Australia, I feel that it might be useful for any keen observer of mankind to know what it was like for a coloured immigrant to enter Australia during the dark age of White Australia; and thence to cope with the lingering but slowly fading effects of the colonial heritage of Anglo-Celt Australians. A combination of a smug superiority based on skin colour and religious affiliation, and a fear of foreigners reflecting the isolation from the world of whites, does not provide a sound foundation for dealing with, initially, a vast increase of white immigrants with strange languages and cultures and, latterly, an influx of an even wider range of skin colours, cultures, and religious beliefs. This observer might also be interested to know how such an Asian 'outsider' sees the significant tidal changes which have since occurred in inter-community relations, and in the search by fellow Australians for psychic stability and spiritual peace; and how national identity may have been impacted.

In this narration of my experiences and observations, I therefore focus on two principal areas of significant human interest and experience; I also offer some commentary and a few tentative conclusions about the future of the human condition in my country of adoption. Commencing with the issue of skin colour (which covers the plight of the Australian indigene), I move on to religion and the search for spirituality; changing inter-community relations (both Anglo-Celt/migrant and ethnic/ethnic); and the evolving national identity. Naturally, my perceptions are filtered through the cultural values which formed me. They also reflect my ideology. I believe in a free but mutually-responsible people, with liberal but communitarian values, living in a secular and tolerant multicultural society, in an independent sovereign nation-state. Could one ask for less, even if the universe in which we exist is said to be illusory, that is, a reflection of Maya?

Unlike some Australian-born expatriates, I respect my fellow Australians. A goodly number of us remain engaged in working for the common good, primarily, for the communities in which we live.

### Chapter 1

Black Looks in Oz

"...the assumption that Australia not only has a history worth bothering about, but that all the history worth bothering about happened in Australia." — Clive James

" **B** e careful! Raj will give you a black look, if you don't play well today." When I first heard these words, I was mystified. There had been no reference to my colour for decades, certainly never in a stable social situation. Why now, in the mid 1990s? Anyway, it came to my notice that these strange words were being uttered somewhat frequently by Willy, a chatty old Aussie, in my presence. Yet, he never referred to any of the others — all white — as ever giving black looks. Willy, typically self-confident, in spite of being relatively unlettered, and I were members of a group of elderly men (known as the 'vets') who played tennis three times a week. Our ages ranged from a little under 60 to about 80. Most, like Willy, were ordinary folk, with no pretensions.

Significantly, this strange reference to my black looks was actually spoken with some warmth! Willy was thus indicating, very clearly indeed, that he rather liked me, in spite of my being a 'black', ie a coloured person. At least, this is how I saw my associate's behaviour. I was therefore not offended. I had, of course, learned such tolerance through similarly disconcerting experiences with Anglo-Celt Australians in my earliest years in the country. Significantly, European migrants did not seem to be sensitive to skin colour. Indeed, unlike the Anglo-Celts, they appeared to view my cultural heritage with some respect.

I do, however, accept this strange behaviour by Willy as symptomatic of the mindset of those Australians who see skin colour first, and whose behaviour thereafter reflects that over-riding perception. Why do most Anglo-Celts seemingly see skin colour as the primary defining characteristic of fellow humans? A few centuries of domination of coloured people everywhere by European colonisers led to claims about the innate superiority of those lacking a suntan. The politico-social construct of 'white' people, linked to two generations of Australians bathed gloriously by the White Australia policy, with its cultural underlay of superiority, unavoidably results in coloured people being viewed askance. I know though that, if and when Anglo-Celts eventually accept me as an equal, I am treated as well as anyone else. That is, in that casual Australian way of a refreshingly open informality, but without any risk of intimacy (which I claim is essentially a Protestant tradition).

This tennis group's quiet sensitivity to skin colour is reflected not only through their private comments on the nation's indigenes; but also on the brown chaps in neighbourhood countries. Coloured women, not surprisingly, are clearly OK! After all, what could be more enticing than big boobs on a slim, feminine female? But I find it engrossingly intriguing to have terrible displays of colour prejudice uttered in my company. It would seem that, in such circumstances, I have the status of an honorary white. Am I supposed to be flattered?

A deeper explanation of the Anglo-Celt's colour prejudice may come from that Jungian collective unconscious. Overcoming coloured people everywhere led, as mentioned above, to white adventurers and marauding pilferers believing that they had a right to exercise control in these relationships. Then came the newly coined concept of race. This was implicit in the nation building taking place in Europe, based as it was, on cultural or tribal homogeneity. A wilful misunderstanding of Darwin's theory of evolution then led to claims that the technologically superior whites were higher up the evolutionary scale. An unthinking misinterpretation of what Christ is alleged to have said about the pathway to God to his fellow Semites (viz "only through me shall ye know God") conveniently ignored Christ's predecessors in India, especially the Buddha. The Europeans' collective unconscious juggled these components together to produce a comforting rationale for the despoliation and destruction of infidel societies and their cultures. The modern untutored Aussie wears this rationale as a cloak of comfort which (like modern water-repellent fabrics) enables him to shed all unwanted foreign influences with indifference.

Then, at the end of World War Two, after nearly a century of living in an atmosphere of communal stability, the old Aussies' somewhat somnolescent and superior psyche had suddenly become a little convulsed. A nation created by white Christians, for white Christians, had hitherto successfully marginalised the indigene, and kept out other coloured people (recognising that not all dams are leak proof). This left plenty of scope for the Christian sects to out-gun one another. The cultural peace and quiet ethnic satisfaction enjoyed by those who looked back with pride upon the times of white colonial supremacy, both at home and elsewhere, was now being ruined by a massive immigration program. Initially, the entrants were white, although a goodly proportion had foreign features and behaviour; latterly, the entrants displayed a range of colours and cultures. The despised and quiescent Aborigines, instead of dying out or bred out as expected, also began to multiply, or re-discover their previously denied Aboriginality. They also claimed their proper place in Australian society. Worse still, they started to ask for apologies and compensation for past injustices. Indeed, they even seek self-betterment through self-management!

Many of the people I talk to are now unhappy about the high crime rates for the newer Asian communities. They are also uncomfortable about the vast increase in East Asian faces on the streets. These were the 'yellow hordes' of yesteryear, some now referred to as 'slopes'. Many observers have also become bitterly aware of the legislative and policy structures intended to 'favour' both the foreigner and the indigene. These cover racial discrimination, racial vilification, equal opportunity, and similar practices, with their unfavourable implication about (mainly) mainstream Anglo attitudes and practices.

Then came the overt political challenge (in the mid 1990s) by that significant minority of whites attracted to Pauline Hanson, MP, because of her views on Asian immigration and the Aborigines. I noticed that this was followed immediately by a rise in public expression of racial and cultural prejudice. The defenders of such aggressively rude behaviour claimed a right to free speech, a right endorsed by the government in its efforts to wean this disaffected minority from Hanson. There was also a rise in street abuse of people who looked coloured, whether or not they were Asians. Whilst Asian governments expressed concern about the security of their people in Australia, my government did little that was effective in protecting coloured people like me in public spaces. There were reports of brown-coloured children (most probably Australian-born) being vocally abused on public transport, without anyone intervening. Muslim women had their headgear torn off in busy streets. Wealthy Chinese in expensive suburbs were spat at on railway platforms. To further fuel the fires of over-rapid and threatening social changes, came the land rights claims by Aboriginal communities. The irrationally pathetic and prejudiced response by some Australian politicians, and their pastoral and mineral constituencies, to these claims did little to enlighten a population generally kept in the dark on such an important issue.

The rise in racial abuse led to me, the only visible Asian in a small country town, being confronted, for no overt reason, with very personal abuse, in a public place, on a few occasions in the late 1990s. This was after a long period of peace of about thirty-five years (albeit in conservative and protected Canberra), in a total residence of nearly fifty years in Australia. In that period, I had had a relatively high profile in various community organisations, and been accepted in leadership roles (eg as national president of a respected organization). I was abused simply because I obviously _look_ like a 'bloody foreigner'; and it was now acceptable to express one's xenophobic feelings. It took me back to my early days in Australia.

A foreigner coming into Australia in those early days was not only very easily noticed, but also commented on (eg "Look at that blackfellow"), or rudely addressed (eg "Hey, Rastus", or "Listen, Jacko"). Why should this have been so? "Why don't you go back where you came from, you black (or effing) bastard?" was quite common then. The first time it happened to me, I was stunned. How could a well dressed woman, in a Collins Street arcade (in a fashionable part of Melbourne), shout at me in that way? Why? What had I done to her or to her people? What sort of humans were such Aussies? By what right could she claim to protect public space initially stolen from black people? I had no answers then.

Looking back is, however, not an easy task. As said by Qin Shi Huangdi (said to be the first emperor of China), "Those who make use of antiquity to belittle modern times shall be put to death with their relations". This fierce forward-looking self-aggrandising view was seemingly supported more recently by a philosopher from the far side of the globe — Nietzsche. He said: "The historian looks backward; in the end, he also believes backward". The utterances in Australia by some academics, politicians, and media pundits in recent decades lend some confirmation to this caustic perspective. Yet, I (a representative of a further culture), know that looking back can be useful. This is so, even if (as said a hundred years ago by that famous British politician Gladstone) one cannot fight the future. In looking back, I realised that I would echo Lord Byron. He said: "I stood among them, but not of them; in a shroud of thoughts which were not their thoughts". And this might be a perspicacious approach for me.

A slight digression. I can now look back, with some amusement, at an extraordinary event more than half a century ago. Four young men, naïve about that strange combination of ignorance and arrogance of the white Aussies of that period, went to have supper with a middle-aged lady, her university student son, and her best friend, Gladys. Soon after we arrived, she went up to Ari, took one of his hands, and said, "Gladys, see how his palm is not as dark as the back of his hand". So, Gladys stood up to have a good look. Then our hostess asked Ari to show his tongue, and said, "Gladys, see how pink it is". Gladys agreed. Then, much to our consternation, she peeled back Ari's lip (whilst he sat, presumably stupefied) and commented on the colour of his gums and the inside of his cheek.

The rest of us looked at one another in disgust. I did wonder whether she would proceed to have him peel back his foreskin to see what colour was concealed (we are normally untrimmed). I also wondered whether she had been a slave trader in an earlier incarnation. Suddenly, the three of us remembered an earlier appointment (at 9 pm?), and left Ari to his fate. It was sad foregoing all those lovely cakes; but not the horrible tea that we expected to be served.

It is a historical fact that, since the time of its initial occupation, Australia had been progressively racially cleansed — to remove coloured people from any usable land. This had been achieved by all manner of means — all immoral. There is nothing new to be said about all this. The abominable ethnic history of this nation is now well known. Indeed, an academic recently accused both the historical and the modern Australian of genocide (using the UN definition), under three (possibly four) counts. However, I am delighted that today's generation of Aussies, mostly young (and many not so young), are encouragingly endeavouring to acknowledge and compensate (but without any sense of guilt) for the misdemeanours of previous generations. Not all of the latter were their genealogical ancestors, or involved in the ethnic cleansing. As that famous Roman Seneca said: "Injustice never rules forever".

The most effective means of achieving a uniformly white populace was by assiduously attracting British migrants of all ages, irrespective of skill, education or funds (and, as I note, not necessarily speaking understandable English). In relatively recent times, young British children were also treacherously bundled off to the antipodes with this objective. Many of these were then subject to physical (including sexual) and moral violence. I find it surprising that members of the priesthood were among the perpetrators. The brutality of such Christian priests might be explained only in part by that celibate life imposed upon some of them, and their authoritarian system of rule. It was only near the end of their lives that some of these involuntary Aussies learnt that they were not orphans. Indeed, they came to realise, almost too late, that they had kin 'back home'; and some very joyous reunions with their families then brought them that solace which they had needed in their lives. Perhaps the Law of Karma can offer compensation within the one life.

In this early environment of attempted uniformity, the relatively few _white_ non-British residents of Australia wisely kept a low profile. Exogamous marriage would also have helped their acceptance, but only in the long term. Anyway, there were not enough of them about to cause serious umbrage to the xenophobic Aussie; although the record shows acts of violence against them by some ignorant Anglo-Celts. The treatment of the Chinese, Kanakas and other _coloured_ people is, of course, a quite different story.

But, as one might ask, were most Australians xenophobic in those early years of my arrival? The answer can be found, in part, in the media of that period. Did they give objective coverage to events occurring outside the country; whether the national government radio station looked at events overseas without prejudice or paranoia; whether, once an Australian sporting team or sportsman was eliminated from an international competition, the Australian public was permitted to know how the competition was progressing; and whether there were prominent politicians and editorialists preaching or propagating prejudice against foreigners, especially the coloured ones to the north of the island continent. Perhaps, as a famous Australian editor allegedly asserted at that time, the typical newspaper reader in Australia had a mental age of only twelve. This reminds me of an adage: that one cannot fly like an eagle with the wings of a sparrow. Yet, progressive changes were about to be set in train.

It is worthy of great commendation that in the years immediately following the much-wanted end of the Second World War, Australia opened its arms to Asia by initially offering scholarships to young Malayans to study nursing. Later, the Colombo Plan provided university places to government-sponsored students. We Malayans had also already formed an attachment to Australia and its people. We were grateful for the troops sent to protect us. Members of my extended family had fraternised with some of the officers. At about the same time, perhaps by a process akin to that by which birds throughout the world suddenly learnt to remove foil caps from milk bottles, private students from a number of countries in Asia began to choose Australia for their tertiary qualifications in the late 1940s. Widely separated by seas and time, just like the milk-loving birds, the students (and parents) took a liking to the hitherto unknown Australian universities and schools. Perhaps, as the English poet Longfellow put it, "All things must change to something new, to something strange".

Asians generally tend to claim that a yearning for knowledge reflects their cultural traditions. Yet, the search for formal qualifications (especially technical ones), enabling the acquisition of a high income (and all that comfort and freedom that goes with it), can easily over-ride the cultural imperative. Francis Bacon's "I would live to study, not study to live", whilst seemingly Asian in perspective, might (in the post-colonial era) find limited support in that continent. European men had taught the subjugated modern Asians the value of advanced technology. Join them or beat them at their own game (as did the Japanese), became a clear ambition. Unlike the dog, for whom happiness always lies on the other side of the door, these Asian people knew what they wanted to take from the West without losing themselves. But I doubt whether many would have taken note of the exhortation by the great Greek philosophers that "the unexamined life is not worth living".

So, young Asians entered Australia in increasing numbers. Initially, we came mainly from the Indian sub-continent and other British-controlled territories, such as Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and Malaya (now Malaysia and Singapore). A few came from Thailand. Strangely, there were also white students from overseas. I subsequently came to know well some students from Mexico, the USA, France and other parts of Europe. Those from Europe and the USA were probably immigrants. But we Asians were on strictly controlled student visas, because of the then White Australia policy. An interesting aspect of this attempted control was the use by the Department of Immigration of landladies and guest house owners to keep tabs on us. In one university, a particular senior academic was believed by us to report to the security agencies about our contacts and activities. In time, we coloured fellows became acceptable as residents; that is, if we asked to remain in Australia. Usually, this was because of marriage to white Aussie women who, then, did not wish to settle elsewhere. When allowed to stay, we were given only temporary residence rights, as were the Japanese wives of Australian servicemen. This happened even in the 1950s.

Why did we come to Australia instead of studying at home, when (except for Malaya, at that time) we had our own universities? In the main, we wished simply to acquire the white man's qualifications. To do that, we traditionally went to Britain; but Australia, whilst unknown, was closer.

In spite of our middle class presentation and conduct, we were not always seen by the Aussies as ambassadors for our people. Initially, we were not even tolerated by many. Our acceptance by such Aussies took a little time and effort, aided mainly by our adaptation to the behavioural mores of the man in the street, who was (in the main) our major contact. With the more educated Aussies, acceptance was easier. The willing support of barbecues, drinking lots of beer, and adopting blunt speech were useful vehicles for acceptance. Learning to drink beer in the Aussie style was difficult, I found, especially with the six o'clock closing of the pubs; but lots of practice helped. Learning to swear proficiently was relatively easy; a most useful skill in certain situations. As a result of my experiences, I recommend that middle class and professional migrants mix with the ordinary man in the street. This is the best way to come to know the Australian people, and to understand them. Diplomatic circuses, academic soirees, and professional conferences can then be the cream on top of a well-baked cake.

Fortunately, our relationships with the Aussies improved very substantially over the next quarter of a century. The Colombo Plan of the 1950s, by offering valuable scholarships to Asian students, opened the hearts and minds of some of the recalcitrant Aussies to simple socialisation, if not to miscegenation. Many ordinary Aussies now clearly felt good about assisting us to study in Australia. The inebriated, who invariably accosted us on public transport, made a point of telling us how good they felt about their charity! They meant well. The mantle of even involuntary charity can be so warming!

In my early years in Australia, I was somehow enabled to enter homes at every economic level. The warmest were those of the working class. I have a soft spot for this breed of Aussie. Sipping (awful) tea in the kitchen or drinking beer until daybreak around a keg (generally containing about nine gallons of lovely amber fluid) reflected their hospitality. I did note that it was two years before my middle class Anglo-Celt Aussie student friends invited me to their homes. In that time, I had been invited to dinner by European and English migrant stock, on quite a number of occasions.

The liberalisation of immigration policy in the 1960s by a conservative government, mindful of Australia's place in a politically independent and economically burgeoning Asia, reflected the already open hearts and minds of many Aussies. The non-discriminatory immigration policy, wisely introduced in 1973, brought in Asian settlers whose paths of acceptance had been well greased by us. When the Indo-Chinese refugees arrived in Australia after 1975, no one would have guessed that the Australian nation had matured so wonderfully in such a short time. As someone said, "A bias recognised is a bias sterilised". When, as Chief Ethnic Affairs Officer based in Melbourne, I represented the Minister for Immigration (in the early 1980s) at a stage presentation of their culture by the Hmong community, and at a weekend-long Moon Festival organised by the Vietnamese community, I did wonder if these two communities were aware how my fellow students and I had prepared our Aussie hosts for their arrival.

Yet, the well documented involvement of many Vietnamese and other East Asian youth in the drug trade, and in related crime, has soured the perception of Asian immigrants by many Australians (including me). A perceivable arrogance displayed by some of the newer arrivals is also not good for community relations. Many of us were also not very happy about the large numbers of rich East Asians (known as 'astronauts') who, having acquired resident status in Australia, left their children (described as 'parachute kids') in Australia. The children were to acquire academic qualifications, available relatively easily and cheaply in Australia, whilst the parents returned to their homeland work-pastures for the preferred high lifestyle. What sort of immigration was this? These 'astronauts' had obviously taken heed of what Confucius said to their forebears: "The Gods cannot help those who do not seize opportunities". However, when it became known that some of the offspring of wealthy absentee immigrant parents had applied for, and received, living allowances intended for disadvantaged Aussie students living away from home and were self-supporting, the Australian taxpayer was not amused. Even Confucius would not have been amused.

It is now clear (as expressed to me by a host of Anglo-Celt Aussies) that the pace of social change has been too great for many Australians, especially when accompanied by economic and employment uncertainty. I do sympathise with those who say this, as I did for the Malays into whose territory my ancestors moved three generations ago. Therefore, Australia's record of long-ingrained sensitivity (if not antipathy or prejudice) to people of other colours and cultures obviously requires careful handling. Successful community relations, especially relations with (and between) widely disparate tribes, do need time for people (especially the host people) to adjust. That is, to learn that the newer arrivals do not pose a threat to the nation's institutional mores, values and practices.

In fact, the cultural gulf between the Anglo-Celt Australian and the bulk of the 'old' New Australian (ie the European immigrant of the 1950s and 60s from a non-English speaking background) was deeper and wider than that between the Anglo-Celt Australian and the educated English-speaking Asian immigrant of recent times. Since those Europeans had adapted successfully to Australia's institutions, surely these Asians can be expected to adapt equally well; and probably more speedily. The less educated and unskilled Asian refugee and humanitarian intake would continue, however, to pose the same problems as did many of the non-English speaking unskilled white migrants. Further, since the public's attitude to the Aboriginal people became politically linked to the rising intake of Asians, and since the urbanised white gene-infused indigene is not always readily discernible from the brown Asians (because of the influence of a common Caucasian heritage linking whites and these Asians?), the future comfort of coloured people in Australia may be at some risk. Public statements by some xenophobic politicians and academics seeking to be adored as pundits, propagandists and proponents of populism also warned against the Asian tide. But, as Kin Hubbard put it so well: "Nobuddy kin talk as interestin' as th' feller that's not hampered by facts or information".

Whilst recently arrived Asian immigrants and visitors testified publicly to the spitting, name-calling, and other forms of attack by Aussie yobbos, even in the wealthier suburbs, in private, the Anglo-Celts expressed discomfort, disdain and distrust about the heavy influx of coloured people. Examples of utterances made to me are: "There are too many black people coming into the country"; "I moved out when the 'slopes' began to move in"; "You Malaysians are taking up all our good jobs". The worst utterance of all: "You've got to blacken your face to get anywhere these days", links the indigene to the unwanted coloured immigrant. As a result, I fear that Australia's international reputation may be at risk. Indeed, it does not seem to be that good in Asia already.

It is against this background that, as an old Asian Aussie, I write about some of my experiences and observations. As the Japanese saying goes: "The outsider sees most of the game". However, as an old English proverb reminds us: "I can't be your friend and your flatterer too". Yet, I might be able to demonstrate that those of us with 'black looks' are no different in our human aspirations and conduct from the mainstream white Australian; indeed, that I can contribute to building a useful bridge between black and white. Hopefully, the reader might come to accept what a learned Arab had said: "All strangers are relations to each other".

Further, in a world increasingly seeking meaning in life, rather than only survival and security in a physical sense, many white Australians are being attracted to Asian philosophies. As another Japanese saying reminds us, "All religions start from Asia". Few enlightened people are thus likely to reject my claim that Asia continues to have a lot to offer Australia in this search. They might also concur with that Hindu proverb: "There is nothing noble about being superior to some other man. The true nobility is in being superior to your previous self". There is hope for both Australia and Willy, the colour-sensitive tennis player, yet!

### Chapter 2

The Power of Pigmentation

"It's powerful," he said. "What?" "That one drop of Negro blood — because just one drop of black blood makes a man coloured." — Langton Hughes

**L** ike most Asians, I do not take notice of variations in skin colour. When everyone around me sported a different colour, how could I be sensitive to such variations? This claim will no doubt surprise those with a need to detect, and possibly denigrate, anyone with any hint of colour. The way the mixed blood urban Aborigine is talked about is sufficiently illustrative. Since most parts of the world are multi-hued, differences in skin colour are generally not persuasive in human relations where whites are _not_ involved. The exceptions are the caste-ridden, especially the Indians (eg ill-educated Hindu mums looking for 'fair' daughters-in-law); or those Euro-Asians who sought, generally by necessity, to identify themselves exclusively with their usually distant white progenitors.

The explanation for any colour sensitivity in a multi-tribal society, or a society riven by caste, would lie in that basic desire to retain the purity, or integrity, or internal coherence of each tribe or caste. In a similar way, in Australia, a Protestant wishing to marry a Catholic was traditionally required to convert to Catholicism, thus keeping Catholic families intact. As for the desire among some Indian mothers to acquire fair daughters-in-law, it is said to reflect the objective of retaining the colour of their northern, (once) more powerful, ancestors.

In colonial circumstances, a Euro-Asian child would have been more likely to be the product of a master/servant relationship. Like the children born out of wedlock in Australia in earlier times, the Euro-Asian child would have been rejected by the families of both parents. The child might have acquired the father's surname and religion, but remained with the mother. In time, a new community of mixed bloods would evolve. Where political power or social status lay with the whites, and one already had a name and religion derived from the whites, it is only human to seek identity with the white people — hopefully, aided by a helpful shade of colour.

In Australia, mixed-blood Aborigines with the right shade of colour could pass into white society or, at least, avoid the indignity of bureaucratic control over all aspects of their lives. For many apparent whites, the shame of the 'stain' of an Aboriginal genetic input somewhere in the past would have been a terrible burden. This can even lead to their denigration of Aboriginal people, in much the same way that some Euro-Asians displayed prejudice against full-blooded Asians. Such protective stances are understandable.

However, all these are exceptions to the rule. Eighty-five per cent of mankind is coloured. To them, skin colour cannot be a marker of inferiority. Where prejudice or relative power prevails, other criteria for discrimination need to be found.

The ability of white men to intrude into, and control, the lands of coloured people eventually resulted in skin colour being deemed as inferior; indeed, as inferior as the faiths, and other cultural values and practices they found in these lands. Yet, I feel that, in their hearts, many whites do not seem to like their own skin-colour. Why else would so many of them strive so hard to acquire a tan, often at such a terrible price in melanoma and other skin afflictions? Universal acclamation that the re-coloured white looks better than before does confirm my view. This, however, is not what those white people with a superiority complex would want to hear. Yet, I and my Asian friends in Australia have observed over the years that a coloured person draws the eyes of white people subconsciously (but hopefully not in the way one keeps an eye on a strange dog).

Interestingly, black geese, exposed only to white geese, have been shown to prefer white geese as partners. This may be through habituation or familiarity, ie a form of cultural conditioning. But, what if they do not also know that they are black? Indeed, there was a German Shepherd that had not been told that he was a dog. He therefore preferred the company of humans, rarely barked, and expected his owner to growl when there was a strange sound at the door. On one occasion, I had to!

I am also rarely aware that I am _not_ white. Indeed, I have to be told that I am coloured. I really do not know better, like the black geese. Whilst I am aware of the Japanese adage, "When you are among swans, you become a swan", I question whether a cygnet will ever grow into a duck! Purely as an aside: a white friend recently asked me how the white geese saw the sole black goose. My response was that they may be unlike those white colonially-conditioned Europeans. They may not see another colour as _inferior,_ or different enough to respond to adversely. Sexual prowess may also be all that matters, as we coloured chaps can testify!

I _have_ to be reminded from time to time that, in a land of whites, I am coloured. The reminder, infrequent as it is these days, is usually in an uncouth form. I am referred to, addressed as, even treated as, a blackfellow — that is, an inferior fellow. Implicitly, my cultural heritage and ancestry are denigrated. Strangely, a close white friend, who has never observed this treatment, challenged me. She (like a number of other white friends) asserted that I could not possibly have been so treated. And I do commend these friends for their loyalty to their own kind. Yet, she became livid with anger when, a few years later, an indigene addressed her as a "white c..t". My sardonic response was that I had never heard any indigene (normally respectful to all and sundry) talk like that to any white woman! Indeed, Aboriginal people have always been courteous to me, many addressing me as Bro or Brother.

In reality, I and many in my clan (most over-proof Asian) display a throwback to ancestors from a northern clime, because of our lighter colour and, for some, a slightly hawkish nose. But that does not protect me from white racists. The rest of my clan is darker, reflecting their origin in the south of the Indian sub-continent. If that claim to northern origins can be sustained, I may even be able to claim descent from the whitish Aryans. I am, however, not attracted to that thought. Big deal, I say. What was so wonderful about a horde of herdsmen, allegedly originating in West Central Asia, lighting fires to nature gods, and killing a splendid specimen of horse in periodic sacrifice to these gods? This was not homage, as much as bargaining. It reflects an incapacity for appreciating the complex cosmological and spiritual conceptualisation associated with the Hindu people. Such intuitive, mental gymnastics seems to have originated in India. In any event, Nietsche did refer to the Aryans who had wandered into Europe as a "barbarian caste".

The imputed Aryan tribes were described (by colonising Europeans) as Indo-European, not because of where they allegedly finished up (ie India, Persia and Europe), nor where they might have originated (the Caucasus, Central Asia, or even Siberia). The term Indo-European, in fact, refers to the language group they _plausibly_ (by allegedly linguistic connections) belong to. But that does not prove the origins of peoples. Since ethnic distribution is not necessarily congruent with language dispersion, the language spoken by a range of peoples, over time, may reflect, not tribal or cultural origins, but the predominance of a particular language group in a mixed-tribe confluence. For example, Persian was once spoken as the principal language from the Aral Sea down to the Indian Ocean, by a wide range of tribes, over a considerable period of time. This pattern can still be found elsewhere. Where English is currently spoken as a first language or used as legal language is indicative. For instance, the legal system in Malaysia continues to use the English language — long after the British left. What will historians make of that Asian nation's history, a thousand years from now, when court documents in English are unearthed by archaeologists?

The facts of history (certainly pre-history) are difficult enough to establish. When scholars are accused of bias because of pride in their religion or the success in imperialism by their peoples; or simply because of racialist, tribal or cultural prejudice, how does one come to know the reality of events, their sequences, and impact relations way back in time? Even archaeological findings require interpretation. Since culture-free science does not seem to exist, can one rely on ancient writings to offset possible bias by modern researchers?

Many West European scholars, since the eighteenth century, have been accused of re-interpreting ancient history to support the belief (since proved fallible) that (white) European man is innately superior to all others (simply because of a few centuries of superiority in armaments). To support this belief, any contribution to the progress of mankind's civilisation by ancient Egypt, China and India were apparently played down or ignored. That China was the world's leading nation, particularly in technology, only five hundred years ago is rarely mentioned. Egypt's substantial contribution to the development of Western Asia and, later, Europe has been claimed to have been fudged by those European scholars. These needed to have as their cultural forebears an improbably pure 'race' of Greeks, who somehow came up, all by themselves, with all manner of meaningful thoughts, unaided by necessarily-inferior foreigners (especially from Asia or Africa). Yet, Pythagoras and so many other eminent Greek philosophers are said to have studied in Egypt for extended periods. Why would they have done that?

According to this colonial perspective, the early Indians could not have been advanced, either technologically or in their conceptualisation of the Cosmos, until whitish Aryans over-ran them, and showed them the way, especially through a colour-based caste system. The caste system, together with the multi-dimensional destruction of India's economy, a legacy of British imperialism, contributed to the parlous condition of the bulk of the Indian people. Since the non-Dravidian languages had become plausibly linked by professional linguists to the major European languages, a select 'race' of (new) whitish Central Asia-derived Aryans had obviously to be included with that all-conquering 'race' of white Europeans.

"Ye gods and little fishes," exclaimed an old philologist friend of mine; "What sort of scholarship is this?" He pointed out that racial whiteness is an arbitrary construct, with self-selected boundaries imposed upon an indefensible (and porous) concept of race. He also wondered how much Mongol, Turkic, and Semitic genes were incorporated in those European scholars, having regard to the mixing of people throughout that peninsula jutting out of West Asia. This might explain the recent tendency of some Western scholars to refer to Eurasia. Now Europe can share in all that contribution by ancient Asian peoples to the achievements of mankind. It's little wonder that Afro-American, African and Asian scholars are so keen now to research their own origins.

Such research by Indians casts great doubt upon the European theorists of yesteryear. The latter seemingly had to prove that it was their long-separated blood stock who had civilised Asia. The Indian view is that the so-called Aryans were one of the local tribes in a mixed language assortment of people, sharing a history and cultural traditions with people of similar (or the same) stock in what is known today as Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the event, it might have been these people who took variants of the core language to the West, and perhaps helped to populate parts of Europe.

In reality, very little seems to be reliably known about the distant origins of the ethnic peoples in most of Asia, in spite of all the speculative academic theories which abound. I have read that most of what is known about Central Asia is based upon coinage, rather than on ethnography! Tribal origins and delineations are smothered under over-arching language dispersals, as well as by art and other cultural borrowing. Worse still, even the boundaries of tribal agglomerations can be porous, because of ongoing incursions, settlement, and incorporation of nomads, invaders, traders and travellers of diverse ethnic origins. Little is also known about any traumatic climatic changes in prehistory which could have driven whole populations from the formerly fertile regions of Central Asia, to the south or east or west; or about the causes of such climatic changes. Major impacts caused by cosmic catastrophes or volcanic eruptions might have been responsible for some movements. The anonymous saying, "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there" sums it up well.

Recent challenges to the picture painted by white supremacists about civilisations in Asia are fascinating. To the claim by colonisers and their scholarly associates that anything valuable is attributable to whitish Asians (the darker fellow is always inferior, as is his culture, no?), there are now scholarly counter-claims by some modern Westerners. These point to very ancient, _highly cultured,_ durable civilisations in most of Asia, especially Persia and India. In this context, and as an aside, I recall being taught in a British Malayan primary school that Indians lived "on the smell of an oily rag" (the Maharajahs with their splendiferous lifestyles obviously excepted), and how cruelly some terrible Indians had killed some nice Englishmen in 'the black hole of Calcutta'! The Indians apparently deny that the latter occurred, whilst the former could be a laughable matter — if only one could forget (according to Pandit Nehru) that the British destroyed the economic base of India, and repeatedly allowed millions of Indians to die of starvation. That the British put in roads and railways to move the goods they wanted grown — eg opium — does not ameliorate the tragedy of their economic and cultural disruption.

All that anyone can be certain of in connection with the distant past is that, over the millennia, there have been vast geological convulsions. For example, Krakatoa (in the Indonesian Archipelago) blew up about 1500 years ago, causing the dimming of the sun for years. There were terrible consequences for mankind everywhere. Did the Dark Ages of history commence then, and in that way? There have also been (reportedly) dramatic movements of comets and planets causing terrible havoc on Earth, through both gravitational and electrical impacts. Major cosmic catastrophes have been claimed to have occurred around 9500 BC, 4000 BC, and 2350 BC. The last is a pervasive number, reportedly appearing in many records and estimates. Some major event also seems to have occurred about eleven to twelve thousand years ago. As a consequence, there may have been significant movements of peoples, causing more havoc. Civilisations may have been buried, drowned, washed out; and peoples moved hither and thither. This would have led to a vast intermingling of genes, blood, and skin-colour, as well as cultural practices and languages. Much of mankind may therefore belong to a bigger gene pool that some might find acceptable! Although my own family history has been reliably traced back to seventeen generations, and there is clearly no evidence of any foreign genetic infusion, I cannot claim, with any certainty, an unmixed ethnic past (for what that is worth).

Only one attribute has remained unchanged over the millennia. Possibly no amount of prayer or guidance from the future or the spirit world could alter that easily. Relative brute power (whether technological or economic) will continue to reign supreme. Borrowing from the unloved Joe Stalin, up to now, not a single people has voluntarily made way for another people.

Perhaps for the first time in man's brief recorded history, in the last four centuries or so, power relationships between cultures and tribes have reflected a sustained _black/white_ divide. This reflects a fortuitous temporary technological advantage and, through that, a terrorist advantage, achieved by some of the peoples of Europe. In the twenty first century, European people continue to exploit their military advantage in the Middle East and Central Asia. They seek to acquire yet more land, water and petroleum deposits. They do so with customary brutality, but describe the destruction as 'collateral damage'. Before about five centuries ago, such a military advantage was vested with the marauding Mongols and with lesser tribes in other parts of Asia. Some of the empires established by sundry Asian tribes were vast and powerful, some fairly durable. According to some historians, these empires made those of Alexander and Napoleon look quite unimpressive, ie in both their durability and in what they achieved. Not that this matters much.

In the more recent events, peoples of a _superior_ colouration were subjugated by white Europeans — in the name of Christ; in the search for gold, spices, and trading advantages; and in the strategies required to keep fellow European nations out of those parts of the globe each little European nation sought to dominate and exploit. I note that someone who called himself Pope, satisfied with his monopoly over the known (flat Earth) world, had granted Spain and Portugal rights to the rest of the world. This did not favourably impress the other European nations. They took what they could. In recent centuries, this included Russia, which took up so much of north and east Asia that it represented a threat to the other European 'powers' marauding in east and south Asia. In the expansion into the other continents by Europeans, there was the usual terrible carnage and brutality that aggressors of all colours have ever demonstrated. The teachings of Christ did not of course apply when Christians came against non-Christians. The latter were held officially to be heathens and infidels. That is, they were not worthy of Christian charity. That blood-thirsty priest who accompanied Pizarro to the Americas is a case in point.

In Australia, an indigenous people living in a precarious balance with a predominantly harsh environment seem to me to have been treated worse than any other allegedly heathen non-threatening people. Why? Because they were seen as _sub-human_ by an advanced Western society offering its vision of progress. Against the background of Christian colonists generally treating all subject people with indifferent brutality, and of the colonists in America practising slavery, and driving away or killing the indigenes, the British colonists in Australia destroyed a whole people in a way that might not have a parallel elsewhere. The attempts to camouflage this dreadful and unchristian conduct (reflecting greed and lust) resulted in new concepts and definitions — of peoples, law, justice, religion and historiography. This pithy piece of graffiti may therefore be obliquely apt: "Judas needed the money for a sick friend".

Australian Aborigines were seen by many of the new colonists not only as sub-human. The indigenes had, according to the coloniser and his judiciary, no law and no religion. They were not seen as living in an organised manner, with cultural values and practices derived from concepts about their origins, and a vision about their relationship to their environment. Official British government edicts and a few caring state governors did little that was effective in protecting the indigenes. Two centuries of being treated virtually as fauna, with the women taken as needed, and thereby contributing to a hybrid species, resulted in a demoralised people. They had no confidence in themselves, had few rights, and lived a marginal and poverty stricken life. It was more an existence, akin to the life of beggars in Asia; at least, until they were included in the welfare state.

This was the Australia I entered in 1948. The whites were in two broad ecclesiastical camps — the Roman Catholics (claiming to be all-Irish) vs. the rest. The former were referred colloquially as 'micks' or 'tykes', the significance of which missed me for decades. The latter included the mainstream Protestants, referred to as 'prods' by the 'micks', and a clutter of other Christian sects. There was no place for the urban mixed-blood Aborigines, even though they too were Christian. The rural indigenes, whether pure of blood or mixed, could live in river beds, or on the fringes of townships in shanties; that is if they were free to live where and how they wished. If not, they would live on official settlements created as holding ponds, so that their lands could be exploited by the whites. The pattern for this treatment had already been set in North America. This is why I am somewhat bemused by the official Australian and his mentor, the US American, when they now babble about human rights. Their houses are not yet in order. But, they do thunder, most righteously, about their perception of a deficit of rights in developing Asian nations. Good try, lads! Is there not something in the Bible about casting the first stone?

I had no reason to expect any racism in Australia. The Aussie troops in Malaya pre-war had been a chatty, friendly lot. My Australian high school principal, although authoritarian (subsequently modified by incarceration by the Japanese military in Changi), was a civilised educator. Strangely, so was the Japanese principal of the Technical College I attended for a while during the Japanese occupation of Malaya. He was also a very senior officer in the Japanese army, and thus able to save us from a severe beating by the military police. The beating would have been earned when we stood and cheered a British plane flying low, near the end of the war. Such a sight had been denied us for the three and a half years of Japanese occupation, with all its hardships and fears. The Japanese did not, however, treat us in a racist manner.

A great surprise on my arrival in Australia was that there was no one to help with the luggage on taxis, trains and coaches. Yet, everyone was courteous and helpful, and ready to offer directions, and give advice on matters of interest to us. The Aussie accent was a bit of a challenge, as my accent must have been to the Aussies. What was warming was the confidence of all those paid to serve the public, displayed often in humour. To get the best from these people, all that I had to do was to display the conduct I had been taught — to treat a human being as a fellow human being. Occasionally, I heard gruff or grumpy voices, but there was none of that truculence that one might find with an underpaid official or private sector 'gatekeeper' in an impoverished Asian environment. The remedy for truculence by those with discretionary power was, of course, a little gift, handled with necessary discretion. Yet, in an Indonesian capital city, only a few years ago, both customs and airline staff openly asked for a tip.

That such gifts were inappropriate in Australia was quickly learnt by a Malayan Chinese friend of mine in 1949. Pulled up by a traffic cop and asked for his driving licence, he took out a special wallet, and handed it to the policeman. On opening the wallet, the policeman found the required licence and a folded currency note. The policeman looked at my friend, and growled, "What's this?" "Ah, that's where it went", said my friend, and removed the money from that wallet. And that was that. At home, the money would have been unobtrusively palmed — even if the licence was current.

It was when we sought accommodation in private homes that we found the greatest sensitivity to foreigners. For example, having been told over the phone that a room was vacant, I arrived at the address within ten minutes. The landlady looked at me quietly (and I thought with some surprise) and regretted that the room had been let. Yet she had known that I was on my way. I was very well dressed, etc, etc. This was a common experience for many (if not most) of us, for years. It was dispiriting, but quite curious. We did not then know about the aversion by Anglo-Celt Aussies to sharing both private and public space with coloured people. And they did have that strange capacity to look down at us coloured folk. For example, in the streets of Melbourne I was frequently asked which ship I was 'off', irrespective of the quality and style of my clothing (eg a Harris or Irish tweed jacket, Fletcher Jones slacks and brogues or suede shoes). Initially, I tried to explain that I was not a lascar (a lowly Indian sailor), but a student. I think I was really expected to be carrying a string bag with a live fowl to take back to the ship for my dinner. But the questioner was invariably attempting to be friendly!

On public transport, in spite of our cleanliness and expensive presentation, few Aussies were willing to sit next to us — for some years. Strap hanging was clearly preferable to sitting next to well dressed, quiet Asians. But the drunks were different. They wanted a chat too and then, with some, there came a quiet request for money. Girls were reluctant to go out with us. Few Anglo-Celt Aussies invited us to their homes, in spite of appearing most friendly in our studies or at sport. We could be ridiculed for our accents, the way we used some words, and some of our social practices. For example, we were required never to say 'she' or 'he'. Instead, we had repeatedly to use the names of those we were referring to. "Who is she? The cat's mother?" was something I came to dislike intensely. It was so culturally arrogant. Then there would be the pretence that we had so mispronounced a word, or misused the language. "Oh, I thought you meant (such and such)". Could they not listen more carefully, or ask for the word or phrase to be repeated? Well, we often did ask the Aussies to speak more clearly. It was the way they spoke about what we meant that indicated an attempted put-down. To us, the Aussie accent was as weird as many English accents. But, we were not supposed to question the clarity of an Aussie's speech.

Below the surface, the Aussie arrogance is still there. The oldest generation displaying it (and a great deal of prejudice) when I arrived had to die before the lives of the early foreigners improved. My generation of whites has not fully grown out of its inherited superiority yet. My children's generation, however, offers hope for us all. I guess that this is because this generation includes the children of those white immigrants who had to speak and behave ever so carefully themselves. Yet, the European peoples (mostly immigrants, with accents, but also their offspring) had no problem with us Asians. The girls went out with us. Landlords and landladies treated us as educated people. We communicated without reference to accents, word usage or custom. We went to the opera together, saw films and plays, and ate out.

There were a few notable exceptions. One Anglo-Celt landlady had us address her as Mum. We sure had initial difficulties with that. However, she was a kind person — as long as you did not run into her late at night. By then, she and her boyfriend (both past middle age) would be noisily inebriated (on fortified wine) and argumentative. Other exceptions included a couple of self-effacing brown-skinned chaps who were known to be discreetly servicing their respective Anglo landladies. Weren't the rest of us mere males envious!

Strangely, it was often in public places that racism was displayed. "Why don't you go back home, you black bastard?" or "We don't want you here", took a while to adjust to. There would be derogatory remarks about us — sometimes face-to-face, at other times within our hearing (obviously intentionally). There would be aggression in their voices on occasions; we did wonder at that. Usually, there was just disdain. We thought it weird. The overt display of prejudice was, naturally, from the lower classes. The middle class was more subtle. For example, I remember being told that Indians used curry power and spices to cover the rottenness of the meat they ate. I thought that it was the white man in Europe who did that. A quiet put-down was clearly the style of the middle class Aussie. But, it was not difficult to intuit disdain or dislike, especially when one had never experienced it before arriving in Australia. I also used to wonder at the (few) university students whose manner gave them away. What was their problem? Interestingly, in 1949 or 1950, a students' representative council at a major university ran a survey of the Aussie students' attitudes to the sudden influx of Asians. I was told that one of the questions was whether the student would want his/her sister to marry one of these Asians! By then, some of us were already enjoying coitus with white women. What a scholarly survey that was!

Those Anglo-Celts at the top of the socio-economic tree would, however, not lower themselves to display this sort of petty prejudice. They would refer to Asian corruption, the way Indians prayed to rocks and trees, and the inclination of the Chinese to eat dogs or to spit, and so on. Using a military analogy: the foot soldiers attacked — with bayonets; the cavalry slit us open as they rode past; the generals just used mustard gas. Our arrival, to these frightened or sick people, was an invasion. But we poor buggers did not then understand that.

Cultural disdain, arising from colour prejudice, is quite weird. Who taught the Australians of my generation to be so ignorant? Obviously, some (or many?) of the priests, politicians and media persons of that era. That my grandchildren's generation does not seem to be able to see colour on skin, or pay any attention to accents, suggests that, not only are our educators doing a good job, but that tribal leaders are adapting well to the realities of a multi-everything humanity. However, the residue of an ignorantly arrogant past still prevails. I hear educated Aussies refer to _current_ racial tensions within the Asian nations. It is almost as if they need to have Asians hold prejudiced views about other Asians. Even an experienced journalist, an acknowledged expert on matters Asian, recently repeated his reference to race riots in Malaysia/Singapore. When were these riots? In 1969! Any other riot since? He and his cohorts are silent. It is almost as if they, or their editors, want to keep the embers of colonial superiority, or the 'white man's burden' glowing. Who gains from this? In any event, are these racial matters: China's incursions into contested land in the Himalayas; Pakistan's efforts to increase its holding in Kashmir; or Vietnam's contest with the Philippines about rights over islands in the China Sea?

Aussie decision makers have also had some difficulty in giving responsible jobs to coloured foreigners, no matter how qualified they were. The standard explanation initially was that the Australian worker, or the clients of a service (whether public sector or private), were not yet ready to accept a foreigner in executive, professional or managerial positions. The medical profession in hospitals is an exception, presumably because white doctors do not want to work in public hospitals, except as specialists. Then there is the Anglo-Celt who still gets quite upset when he sees a coloured person move up the career ladder, past the level he is at. Put a foreigner in a position of authority, and listen to the bitchy comments _sotto voce_! Any 'black' driving a 'flash' car is also likely to be the subject of bitter comments, indicating the speaker's stance about inferior coloureds acting above their station. It has to be said, though, that as the years went by, racial discrimination, prejudice, disdain, and ethnic unhappiness became very substantially eroded. It would, however, be futile to expect the 'them and us' perceived threat from competent and confident coloured people to fade away easily. The prevailing view is that Asians are great, as long as they do not compete. They should stick to running restaurants and other food shops, or go into trade and commerce in non-bureaucratic structures. Power is intended to remain in the hands of the descendants of the nation's founding people.

However, is this not normal human behaviour? Quite so. Yet, can an immigrant-seeking nation, claiming to be non-discriminatory in its selection of immigrants (ie to disregard religion, culture or colour), deny equal opportunity to not only its own blacks, but also to other coloured people? I have taken a lot of 'shit' in half a century in Australia, clearly because I am a coloured foreigner with a different faith. I have experienced discrimination at work in the federal public service, and seen even European immigrants held back. In spite of all the official bumf about the nation's gains from cultural diversity, I know that Australia has a long way to go to join the Family of Man. My judgement of my own nation-state is harsh, simply because we _seek_ immigrants, and in large numbers. Equitable treatment cannot therefore be denied.

Those of us who had not experienced, in our countries of origin, any racism or other prejudice based on being different, have difficulty in understanding the prejudice we have experienced from common folk in Australia. Fanon, a black psychologist, says that a racist is psychologically damaged. His illness is in response to an intolerable situation. The response is to the presence of _inferior_ 'others' in his public space; the presumed threat to his traditions, values and customs; the fear of loss of his imagined national identity; and, what is worse, the claim by those others to _equal_ status and opportunity. It is all too much for him. To that, I would add ignorance, as well as the arrogance of simpletons who had drunk too deeply at the well of colonial superiority.

Strangely, in my countries of origin, in spite of the very large influx of people of other cultures, the Malays did not display prejudice against the newcomer, even in the day-to-day transactions. Perhaps, this was because the Malay people were themselves a mixture of tribes, with some strong regional differences reflecting an Indian or Chinese genetic and cultural input. Each of the major 'nationalities', the Chinese and Indians, was a mixture of tribes, with different languages separating them. Some were separated by religion as well. Yet, to the outsider, they were somewhat similar in their values (as with the perception of Australians by Asians), making it difficult for a non-Chinese to distinguish between the different language groups amongst the Chinese. Similarly, with the Indians. Whilst each tribe may have initially preferred to deal with its own, and each tribe initially co-existed culturally with all the others, they all inter-related, without perceivable prejudice, with all others in their normal commercial and other transactions of life. It was indeed fascinating to hear a Chinese trying to communicate with another Chinese when they had no common language. Ditto the Indians. This kind of behaviour is only to be expected. This is what is found in those places where a mixture of peoples choose to be, or happen to be.

For example, for a few years of my boyhood, one of my bus conductors was a cheerfully noisy American Negro. My dentist was a quiet Japanese. The family fishmonger was a confident Chinese. The vendor of fabrics was a fast-talking Punjabi, for some reason referred to as a Bengali by our womenfolk. These two came to our home. The fishmonger had fish caught the day before by Malay fishermen. The Punjabi sold fabrics from India and China. It was the beginning of a multicultural nation, but commencing with a tolerance which many patronising Australians have yet to learn.

Any social separation usually reflects, initially, language difficulties. In time, cultures do intermingle; unless the priests and/or politicians say otherwise. They have, and I suspect that some still do so. This barrier would reflect the aim of power retention. Over time, habituation in routine contacts would set the mould for future co-operation. In the same way that the diverse sects of a competitive Christianity sought to keep their adherents in Australia apart socially, the various ethnic tribes in Malaya tended to stay apart before World War Two; but yet they joined together in most economic and political domains. Inevitably, when shared languages have already become commonplace, any social division would usually be based on religion. Today, however, the people in Malaysia are effectively unified in a nation-state, defining themselves by their country of nationality — as I believe do the peoples of India, China, Indonesia and other Asian nations with a mixture of tribal peoples. Despite the normal human barriers of power-based castes and socio-economic class, equal opportunities in education now enable successive generations to merge in time. This is how the British tribes in Australia formed themselves into the Australian people.

But Australia went one step further — it wanted a paradise and a safe haven for white British Christians. And it did achieve it. However, paradise lost is a common refrain; as is power lost, as the colonising nations of Europe, including Russia, discovered. By necessity, first European whites, then the apparently not fully-white Levantines, followed by light-skinned, near-white, north and east Asians, followed by _slowly_ increasing numbers of brown people, mainly from south Asia and the Pacific, and a sprinkling of black people, joined the British white Australians. It is difficult to say whether there was a fear by the ordinary Aussie about being browned-out or blackened too quickly. Or whether it was that ruling class prejudice which cunningly blamed the ruled for the not quite fully opened immigration door. Keeping an official arm across that door might itself have projected this prejudice by the rulers onto the ruled. One should note, in this context, the public utterances of Immigration Minister Calwell and others of a similar cast in earlier decades.

No one could have done more than Arthur Calwell to keep Australia white. His infamous statement that "No red-blooded Australian wants to see a chocolate-coloured Australia in the 1980s" epitomised the moralistically purist upholding of that racist legislation commonly known as the White Australia policy. His indefatigable efforts to deport Mrs Annie O'Keefe, the Ambonese (Indonesian) lady with eight children from her previous marriage, and a ninth by her current white Australian husband, demonstrated the level of racism then prevailing at official levels.

As a neighbour of the O'Keefe family for three months in early 1949, I well remember the almost-white new baby, and the happy family with whom my fellow students and I spent some time. Mrs O'Keefe was a great exponent of that wonderful dance, the Charleston. I find it strange that a biography of Calwell made no mention of this Australian-born baby. In view of the substantial public support for the O'Keefe family, one could also question the stance adopted by the guardians of a white Australia in which the nation's black indigenes were somehow to achieve improved life chances.

Is there an antipathy in Australia against 'others' today, arising from the great diversity of cultures now prevalent? A palpable but hidden fear of Islam, reflecting historical prejudice, can be sensed in the general populace. However, irritation, rather than fear, is the usual response to very visible or audible presentations of cultural differences. Behaviour asserting ethnic superiority, especially by some East or West Asians, certainly triggers adverse comments. Or, does the disparagement of Asians by ordinary Aussies arise from the presence of very rich, cosmopolitan and suave, or educated and skilled, Asians? I do believe that our politicians, with too large a proportion of former union stewards, suburban solicitors, and 'shop keepers' among them, lack confidence in their ability to control the new coloured voters, as they had once controlled their own people.

I therefore found it of great interest when an academic suggested not that long ago that the Asian stock in Australia could be identified through successive generations. This would be done by tracing the proportion of the Asian genes in each individual in each generation. In the same way that the smallest fragment of Aboriginal genetic heritage deems a person to be black, so an Asian would be defined as anyone who has an Asian component in his genetic make-up. The Asians to be so identified would seem to me to be the ones whose colour might be considered worrisome. Where the excluding boundary was to be drawn was not clear. Then all these percentages would be added up to show the proportion of the Australian population which is 'Asian'!

This is indeed a queer approach. It smells of apartheid! To put percentages into tribal, ethnic or racial components in the effort of defining an individual by distant origins defies scientific definitions, as well as common sense. In practice, how is this to be done? Further, what would be the moral basis of such classifications? How far back in time does one go in identifying component bogymen in terms of places of origin and peoples — Hun from Mongolia, Moor from Spain, Germanic Vandal from Rome, Han from Tibet? The purpose of all this? Defining _unwanted_ "other" peoples?

A racist could be someone who is seen to respond to others on the basis of colour (usually), country of origin (often), religion or faith (also often), or cultural practices. This is because there is no defensible definition of race, notwithstanding the fondness for that description by those in a combat of colour. Like beauty, race lies in the eye and mind of the beholder. A very kind, charitable person can, by this definition, qualify for the term racist. But that would not be quite fair. It is therefore only when rejection or discrimination is displayed in this act of response to 'other-ness' that the term racist might be employed. It is, however, a nasty label, confusing in practice. Yet, it is a handy description. The attitudes of white Australians which would deny jobs and justice to the Australian Aborigine can fairly be termed racist. This term can most certainly cover the 'rueful' racist, who politely 'regrets' that he is simply unable to provide that vacant job or accommodation sought by a coloured person; and cannot see the situation changing for a while. I and many other Asians know all about this.

Is Australia racist? In spite of a racist senior public servant who hounded me for a few years when I was over fifty years of age, my answer is a categorical denial that Australia is a racist nation. Incidentally, this public servant was the only one of those who had made my life difficult whom I regarded as truly racist. The others were merely indulging in the tribal solidarity game. Is Australia then substantially racist? To be fair, no! How racist is it, having regard for the obvious human failing — that the ignorant (including some financially well-off), or uneducated, or relatively dispossessed tend to an antipathy towards people who are not like them? Amongst these are the yobbos, the ones who attack (orally or by petty actions like spitting) those who, to them, seem to be significantly different. The yobbos are more likely to attack _minorities_ , eg coloured immigrants and Aborigines, because these groups are viewed as _inferior_ as well. When they do attack such minorities, that is racism. The trigger here is inferior colour, the main mark of 'otherness'; or tribally distinctive apparel. Because the yobbos, usually only a small minority themselves, have been very active, Australia has earned (perhaps a little undeservedly) a reputation for racism. However, attacks on people because of their coloured or cultural 'other-ness' and their implied inferiority cannot be condoned. The days when many British and other European scholars and writers could erroneously claim that European people are _naturally_ superior to coloured people are long gone.

The yobbo attacks represent only the soft face of racism. There is a far harsher face. This is quite well concealed in the heartland of the so-called 'battlers', and in the wallet-driven hearts of the greedy. Included are the rednecks, found at all levels of Australian society. The individuals who own this concealed harsh face are not normally readily identifiable. But, when they act in concert, within societally defined classes, to achieve common ends, this face becomes phantasmagorically palpable; and the motives diaphanous. Behind any such concerted action are to be found the fellow travellers in powerful places and the glee clubs in the community who, whilst not involved, dance with the action. In the event, the harsh-faced ones might add up to a considerable proportion (but yet a minority) of the community, especially with regard to matters affecting a coloured minority. This, regrettably, remains the heritage of Australia. Suggestive is the wit of Englishman Robert Morley: "The British tourist is always happy abroad as long as the natives are waiters".

My own experience confirms that a metal ceiling exists. I well remember all that effort (including telling a lie!) by certain very senior public servants, to make sure that I would not be confirmed in the jobs I had been doing, without fault, for an extended period in each of two departments, at a senior executive level. The lie was discovered only two years later. Even my peer group conceded my prior claim in a particular case. In four other departments, I had been ranked second for promotion into the senior executive level. Yet, the chairmen of two of the four selection committees told me that their committees had ranked me first, only to be over-ruled by their head of department. I was once denied senior executive training because the female head of the selection committee decided that I was aggressive. Yet, a few years later, the same woman relied upon my 'aggression' (I thought it was perspicacity and perseverance) to achieve better justice in the selection procedures of her own department (which had since disadvantaged her too). In a couple of instances, I was dissuaded (one involved a direct threat) from applying for promotion. There was a 'preferred pea' in each case. Preference for fishing mates and for fellow members of the faith, and gender bias were impossible to counter.

I hold a meritorious service award from the public service staff union for ten years of work (including leading a committee for seven years) in career protection. I had been recognised by the Public Service Board as competent to plan, direct and teach at courses on hearing promotion appeals. Yet, when I was denied justice at work, there was no remedy, no one to help. When the racist hounded me (ever so insidiously) — and for a few years — even the management chief could not help me, except to move me to another position. I was later told by my former racist boss that my 'cultural background' would always prevent me from further progress. When asked to explain, he could not identify what it was about my culture that was the problem. He did not deny that I drank, pissed, burped, farted, shagged, called a spade an effing shovel if required, and generally behaved like his own people. So, was it my religious faith or my skin colour?

In another area, the new branch head opened the first meeting with his section heads in a very interesting way. He said, out of the blue, that he had not been to Mass for a few years! He explained that he had been busy at work. After a little silence, each of my colleagues admitted that they too had been a little remiss about going to Mass. I could say nothing, but I realised the bonding that had just taken place. I did not think it appropriate to ask what 'Mass' was. Soon, certain practices commenced. So I thought it wise to move out. I also retired early because of a similar experience in yet another area. My cultural background had obviously raised its ugly head again.

High profile Asians seeking to be high-fliers flew alone — and against seemingly racist winds. Competence was not enough. I had been a section head (or director) in three departments for over twenty two years, and managed a wide range of sections. I had acted as a branch head in the last two, for nine months and eleven months respectively. No fault was found in my approach, output, management, and relations with the public. Indeed, I had at least one senior federal minister and senior executives in the private sector to vouch for my competence. Worse still, on two other occasions, I discovered during the interview that the goal posts had been shifted. Yet, I was the one who had led the team which had fought for, and achieved, for a few years, an improved staff selection process, through making transparent the promotions appeal process, and thereby the original selection process. By the 1980s, politicisation of the public service led to the curtailment of such transparent staff selection processes. How are foreigners to obtain equitable treatment in this political jungle?

Yet, in my first two departments, very fair CEOs had allowed me to reach section head level in under ten years. In the third department, initially I dug a hole for myself and jumped into it, but I subsequently redeemed myself. For a total of fourteen years in all, I dealt with some of the top people in the private sector. For six years of those years, I inspected businesses and industries, and interviewed senior executives in the manufacturing sector. A little later, for eight years, I offered, where appropriate, guidance to companies seeking the official gateways in the government's foreign investment policy. I was consulted by lawyers and senior representatives of foreign corporations and Australian target companies. I had a fantastic life, with freedom to travel as I thought necessary. That is, I was trusted. I worked ridiculous hours, and was accepted as a competent manager with good public relations skills.

In my last department, initially I had very substantial contact with ethnic community leaders. As a consequence, in each of two states, I was supported by five different ethnic community groups for the position of head of their state ethnic affairs commission. But, as a non-resident of either of those states, I had no hope. This was in spite of having been the only candidate offering experience in all of these areas: policy, administration, research, and ethnic community consultation. I found it significant that, in both states, an experienced deputy was appointed to support the new head within a year. That was ethnic politics. Then, the weevils struck. I had a rough few years in my place of employment near the end of my working life, presumably because of my 'cultural background'. To have complained officially at the camouflaged antics of a racist at the top of the tree would have thrown a damaging spotlight on an important area of government policy. So, I did not rock the boat. Eventually, I managed to not only de-fang my persecutor privately, but also to have him admit his prejudice.

However, when a big dog in the pack nips you, the silly little ones are quite likely to start yapping and snapping at your heels. But the latter are easy to handle. In a bureaucracy, taking on one of the chieftains would also be dangerous. So, one backs off, protecting oneself as best as possible. The best solution is to raise one's competence to such heights that one is actually needed, even by one's enemy. A new boss then delighted me by telling me that I was 'frightening the shit' out of, not only my own peer group, but also his, through the quality of my work. That was because many of his peer group had been ranked well below me at my entrance to that agency a few years earlier. But that was before the racist was transferred to my agency. Politicisation of the federal public service also permitted non-professional approaches to staffing and policy advice to ministers.

That is how I survived. Indeed, in my last few years, I was placed as head of policy in each of the migrant settlement policy programs. I was thus able, by applying the two core policy questions — is this what we ought to be doing; if so, how well are we doing it? — to sensitise both the policy area in head office and the administrative arms in the regional (ie capital city) offices to necessary processes. To do this, I travelled to each capital city at least once a year; and learnt a very great deal about the migrant communities, their settlement successes and needs, as well as about ethnic politics.

That is, one can find joy in one's job even whilst one is protecting one's head or backside. I had also enjoyed the earlier normal times. The look on some white faces when they entered my office in an earlier job and learnt that it was my initial judgement that my minister's decision was drawn from was worth recording. For example, in a proposal for an American multinational company to take over a small Australian business, the Anglo-Celt Aussie head of the Australian subsidiary was explaining how he, his fellow directors, and the Australian operation were all 'dinky-di' Aussies; and I was pointing out that my responsibility was to look after the national interest (including ensuring that the migrant owner of the Aussie business was not going to be screwed). Almost simultaneously all three of us saw the irony of the situation. The old Aussie was the 'foreigner' and the other two (the migrants) were the Aussies! Why? Because, when someone in the USA clicked his fingers (figuratively speaking), only the 'foreigner' had to salute.

Racial discrimination can also be non-discriminatory. Even needed professional immigrants can be treated badly. Thus, in the early 1980s, an Indian surgeon told me that his referrals came only from Indian doctors. Twenty years later, a Chinese medical specialist setting up practice in an Australian capital city was reportedly advised by white doctors to look to Chinese doctors in that city for referrals. The bottom line in race relations is that the Anglo-Celt may have some difficulty in overcoming his antipathy towards coloured people, because he is confronted continually by the urban indigene, who seems to have a discrete existence of his own. The prejudices of the past, in these circumstances, might be difficult to allay. I had hoped that, through exposure to competent and secure brown-skinned immigrants, the Anglo-Celt might more willingly accept, possibly respect, the Aborigine.

Once the local black is treated as an equal by white Aussies, then the imported blacks (like me) can be more certain that our descendants will be free from the disdain and discrimination that they now risk. As said by Martin Luther King, our children should be judged "not by their colour but by their character". There should be no more references to our 'black looks'. How the indigenes are treated therefore has strong implications for us. I do hope, however, that the 'blackfella' of the Australian bush who now refers to all non-Aboriginal blacks and other coloured people as 'whitefella', will find another name for us. It is really not nice for a tanned Asian to be lumped together with those whites who have screwed, used, abused or discriminated against the indigene.

The 'ugly white Australian' who surfaces not infrequently in major sporting fixtures, both in Australia and overseas, often taunting coloured competitors for their allegedly inferior heritage, should also disappear into the mists of the past. Whilst awaiting the light of God to fall upon the ugly yobbo, I have this advice (drawn from my own extended experience in the Land of Oz) for the Australian indigene: Go for the jugular! But don't waste words on paternity matters. The ugly Aussie is culturally impervious to such references. Instead, touch lightly on matters maternal. That can be very effective in restraining the racist. Another approach (apparently preferred by some leading Aboriginal leaders) is 'kicking the shit out of' powerful white Aussies.

Not turning the other cheek is, I believe, a very human and therefore natural attribute. It is potentially efficacious. I believe that coloured people have to take a stand against sneering whites. For, the battle is not yet over. Indeed, as I said to an old Englishman attempting to defend the hypocrisy, thuggery, and bloody-mindedness of the colonising white Christian, "An offence against God or mankind cannot be explained by saying that others were also doing the same thing at that time".

On balance, however, I do prefer to rely on the Law of Karma (or Cosmic Justice) to redress the imbalance in power relationships between the Aussie white and the latter's fellow-Aussies with black looks. One day, skin colour will not be a marker of inferiority; or a trigger for fear or envy; or even be worthy of note. Quaint concepts relating to whiteness, such as the white race, can end up in the trash can. Then we can relate to one another as fellow humans. And I do believe that my grandchildren's generation is starting to do that.

### Chapter 3

To Have a dream

"It is a great shock ... to find that, in a world of Gary Coopers, you are the Indian." - James Baldwin

**I** can claim to know only one Aboriginal person. Indeed, I have met very few Aboriginal people over half a century in Australia. How am I to meet them? Our paths are so far apart. When a meeting does take place, there might be little of that communication that one might expect from people sharing the same stage. Are they keeping themselves apart, because they have been rejected by white society?

The first Aborigine I sighted was inebriated. I saw him hit on the head (yes the head), and chucked (yes chucked) into a paddy wagon. This was in Melbourne more than fifty years ago. In Brisbane and Perth in the following years, I saw Aborigines being harassed by the police. Since I was with an inter-varsity hockey team in Brisbane, I should have been safe. Yet, one night, walking back to the campus alone, I was scrutinised by the police in a way which I found uncomfortable. Regrettably, in the early 1990s, I saw young Aborigines, well dressed and behaving themselves, and in the company of young whites, being harassed by the police. In the late 1990s, I was followed by a motorcycle cop, on an Easter Sunday, for many kilometres before being stopped. I fear that he had assumed that a brown fellow driving an old car sedately had to be a 'coastal blackfellow', with all the implications of that for the latter.

In a small seaside town north of Perth, nearly fifty years ago, I was in the company of a dark Indian, with the even features found in South India, and a pinkish Eurasian. The latter claimed proudly that he had a Malay grandmother, although this was not discernible. We had got off a small boat and, at the bar of the nearest pub, were asked if we were Aborigines. Surprised (how on earth could we be, given our appearance?), we said no — and were permitted to drink on the premises. The barmaid explained that Aborigines were not allowed to be served. Further up the West Australian coast, adjacent to the cattle country, we saw Aborigines, dressed as stockmen, walking in the distance. There seemed to be none in town. The exception was a street walker that night.

A few years later, a tall Chinese Malaysian, an even-featured Sri Lankan, a tall Indian Malaysian and I (with Sri Lankan Tamil ancestors) happened to find ourselves in a bar in a country town. Our car had broken down, and we were lost. A group of men at the far end of the bar showed a great deal of interest in us. Then the largest fellow in the group came up to us and said something strange, and in a gruff voice: "Where are you boys from?" Seeing that this was none of his business, and taking a punt, I responded with "What's it to you, mate?" in what my Aussie friends describe as a British accent.

He stared at me, then relaxed. Sticking out a bloody great big paw, he introduced himself by first name. We got on well. I realised later that we had been in 'boong' (blackfellow) country, and that the big lad must have been the local sergeant of police. He must have assumed that we were a band of 'citified' (ie sophisticated), possibly uppity, indigenes. In recent years, I have come across a number of Aborigines who clearly have some Chinese or Indian ancestry. Yet, once accepted by the big lad and his mates, my friends and I were OK. We all chatted together for a while, and obtained directions to our intended destination. That is what I, and other Asians I have known, like about the ordinary Aussie.

The first Aborigine I talked to seemed to be a tradesman. It was in the 1960s. He confused me by asking about my colour. I felt that he lost interest in me when I explained that I was an Asian immigrant. I never saw him again — not surprisingly, as this bar was becoming popular with public servants. The latter, having recently risen from the working class, are normally very fussy about the company they keep, especially as they move up their career ladders. One should never be seen to socialise with anyone below one's level.

I then met the redoubtable Charlie Perkins, a recent graduate. He addressed a group of university graduates, and impressed us with his enthusiasm and vision, as well as with his plea. He asked that the Aborigines should be given the opportunity to adapt to modern society, to control their own lives and finances, even if they made many mistakes during the learning process. He received a standing ovation. When I met him again, I was looking for a job at senior executive level, and he was the head of the Aboriginal Affairs Department. He had changed. I sensed a certain arrogance. He may even have suspected that he had been fast-tracked as part of the government's window dressing. All his senior advisers were white. His official life could not have been easy. I did not obviously appeal to him. A few years later, I was a member of a committee deciding a promotion appeal in that department. A young Aborigine was the appellant, against the promotion of a white officer. I realised then how tough it would have been for a young Aborigine, with ambition and his own vision, to make progress in a department dominated by whites, and where the government might have its own concealed agenda.

Somewhere along the line, I set about trying to help Aborigines in the public sector in Canberra to improve their skills, thereby raising their confidence and presentation. I offered training in chairmanship and public speaking (skills shown to benefit everyone); and on their own terms. They could have their own Aboriginal club within Rostrum, an Australia-wide organisation well regarded for its training capabilities, and whose graduates were in senior positions in both the private and public sectors. Or, we could provide training in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, there being no indigene employed elsewhere. Or, they could train themselves in that Department under our expert guidance. We had the skills and the will. There was, regrettably, no interest, in spite of my trying to persuade the highly-regarded Captain Saunders (ex-Army and an indigene), and the Department's senior management that what I offered was valuable. So, that was that. Since it would have cost the Aborigines nothing, except a little effort to learn and to practice ...!

When I worked, after retirement, as a lowly service station attendant, providing driveway service late at night, I met a wide range of Aborigines, a few seemingly full-blooded. There were those who were apparently well paid, driving expensive cars, and employed by Aboriginal organisations. I was told by a couple of them that, in spite of their academic or professional qualifications, there were no jobs available to them in the private sector. At about the same time, the federal government was talking about unemployed Aboriginal people learning to conduct their own businesses. Why weren't the unemployed whites asked to do this too? One would also need to ask whether many whites would accept Aboriginal professional, quasiprofessional or trades people. The antipathy against Aborigines seems to me to be very substantial.

Other Aborigines I met ranged from a couple who worked for the state government, to a goodly number living on welfare. From time to time, a dilapidated car full of apparently inebriated not-so-young Aborigines would arrive at the service station, noisily arguing, often using the filthiest language. On seeing me (perhaps it was my grey hair), they would become silent and be most polite. In the streets, I might be bumped accidentally by an Aborigine, and the apology addressed to me as Bro or Brother was prompt. I could never fault the behaviour of an Aborigine in my presence. The most impressive Aborigine I have met to date is a young lady, who developed her Aboriginal heritage only after reaching adulthood. Today she is an elder, busily guiding her people, as well as building bridges between black and white. I sense, with regret, that only a minority of whites are interested in reconciliation, and in assisting the Aboriginal people to develop themselves. In the light of the country's history, any effort to reach out to the Australian indigene in an un-patronising manner is surely a most progressive step. However, when I attended, as a member of a local adult education committee, a reconciliation study, I was impressed with the understanding and goodwill displayed by the whites participating, and the way local Aboriginal women guided the group.

Yet, I am saddened by the sight of Aboriginal people who are, by build and features, essentially European. However, because they sport a nice tan, they are not part of the mainstream populace. I see so many healthy and happy looking indigenous people, with nicely behaved kids, just wandering around, presumably living on welfare. Others, most employed in Aboriginal organisations, are rarely seen in public. Obviously, class differences exist amongst the indigenes, as with the rest of us. Collectively, though, they seem a separate caste — the Australian untouchable. Something, surely, has to be done to break this logjam of Aboriginal marginalisation. By providing jobs and skills training, governments and the private sector might induce some of the indigenes to integrate (but not necessarily assimilate) into the mainstream — ie to join the immigrants being integrated. Just as the immigrant ethnic communities are encouraged and enabled to retain those aspects of their tribal cultures which are not incompatible with the institutions and public mores of Australia, the indigene should be free to hold on to his Dreamtime or other cultural traditions, whilst integrated. Integrating with the mainstream population should not require the indigene to reject, or disengage from, any Aboriginal self-determination service structures that exist or that might be introduced. After all, ethnic communities are free to have parallel settlement service structures (often funded or subsidised by governments), which are generally ethno-specific.

The services to indigenes might range from simple referrals to mainstream structures, to the provision of counselling, medical, other health, dental, and general welfare services. Governments might want to re-consider their one-size-fits-all approach to indigenous needs and rights; at least until they can guarantee equitable access by the indigenes to the full range of public and private services. I have been told by some Aborigines that their people need health and other services to be provided by their own agencies, because of inadequate access to official services. Does the funding by governments of such parallel Aboriginal services indicate the governments' acknowledgment of this deficit in service delivery by white people and their agencies? Or, are both Government and Aboriginal leaders in agreement that the indigene should paddle his own canoe? It is certainly unrealistic for governments to expect that the indigene, after being rejected, ignored or sidelined for so long, should suddenly seek to join the mainstream. Progress in this direction has to be progressive, if governments can convince the indigene that equality of treatment and opportunity has finally arrived.

However, the majority of the Aborigines might not wish to be integrated with the mainstream. The reasons would be manifold. Would the white population learn to accept the indigene as a functional equal? The public furore over the 'stolen generation' issue, the official and public response to native title land rights, and the private comments I hear, do not fill me with optimism. Of relevance too are the more positive developments at the international level. Achieving a nation of their own, with _sovereignty,_ within the borders of the Australian nation-state might one day be possible.

The attitude of Australian whites to their indigene is bifurcated. There are, firstly, the lamp lighters and flag bearers. These are the humanitarians. Colonial values do not cloud their perceptions. They look forward, not to the past. They support reconciliation (a more accurate word might be conciliation) and efforts to have the viability of, and the respect shown to, the Aboriginal people raised to that of the rest of the Australian people. These include the honest people who recognise the 'first nation' status of the indigene. They seek to have fellow non-indigenous Australians become more aware of the history, cultural values and traditions, art, environmental wisdom, and spirituality of the Aborigines.

Then, there is that majority (a large number of whom have told me about their feelings), with their soul-destroying perceptions of the indigene. This is a grab-bag filled with an interesting assortment of human failings. First, there are the greedy and the rapacious, who may be the cultural descendants of some of the founding fathers, and their protectors in government. Then there are the intellectually-deprived, with their retinal after-image of the white coloniser's cultural and racial superiority. These are followed by the emotionally damaged fear-filled, lacking the confidence to relate to those not like themselves. Those afflicted with subconscious guilt about the terrible things done to the inoffensive indigene by their predecessors, not all of whom were linked to them genetically, are also found in this grab-bag. One can sympathise with these. Those who deny the invasion and conquest of _terra Australis,_ by choosing to believe in the _terra nullius_ myth of their forefathers, are the most intriguing.

A few years after the initial 'discovery' by Captain Cook, it was apparently known that the indigenes not only occupied the land and used it with _economic purpose_ , but also (according to the highly respected Dr.Coombs) "... lived in clan or tribal groups, that each group had a _homeland_ with known boundaries, and that they took their name from their district, and rarely moved outside it". It was also known that they had, and applied, firm rules about trespass, kinship ties, marriage, child rearing and other matters, the hallmarks of an _organised_ society; that they had a "habit of obedience" to their rulers and leaders, a hallmark of a _political_ society; and that they had an ordered ceremonial life, reflecting the sharing of a spiritual vision, a hallmark of a _civilisation_. Apparently, they also had their own zodiac, which guided their activities. Their artistic records are also well known and respected.

It has now been accepted that the indigenes did not cede any of their land. As the famous poet Oodjaroo Noonuccal said, "We are but custodians of the land". Whilst the settlers saw themselves at _war_ , and _killed_ to acquire land, officialdom (later supported by local jurists) preferred _occupation_ to _conquest_. Occupation follows _discovery_ , of a presumed empty land. How were the natives to establish ownership without a Titles Office? Because the morally political Australian rejected the idea of an _invasion_ , a Senate Committee came up, in the early 1980s, with _prescription_. This apparently applies when there is no clear title to sovereignty by way of treaty, occupation or conquest. An _extended occupation,_ and an _exercise of sovereignty_ were apparently enough to vest title in the Crown.

But, prescription requires a _show of authority_ on the one side, and _acquiescence_ on the other (says Prof. Reynolds, the renowned contributor to the nation's enlightenment on this black subject). Since the natives never acquiesced to anything, _voluntary abandonment_ was claimed. The Senate's clever semantic exercise seemed to accept that being killed or driven away is tantamount to voluntary abandonment! A prominent white Australian sociologist reminded me that cities such as Melbourne and Sydney represented the most effective sites of ethnic cleansing; and that every fence in Australia encloses land that was once the soul, or the shared possession of a particular group of Aborigines.

A very substantial majority of the Aboriginal people died in the years following the invasion. Killing was both official and private. "My father used to round you mob up and shoot you for Saturday and Sunday entertainment." This was uttered by a school mate of a recent head of ATSIC (the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission). One does not visit the sins of the father upon the son. Yet, there are Australians today who attempt to defend the historical brutality that led to women and children being shot without compunction, and large numbers of fellow humans being killed through the use of _poison._ What sort of humans were the early arrivals that they could do this? What does it say about their origins, the way they lived before arriving in Australia, and their moral and cultural values? Why were these casual killers so debauched?

Refusing to accept that the indigenes got the rough end of the pineapple collectively, whilst their women were collaterally used freely to create a new creole people, some modern moral purists argue that the major cause of the initial near-extinction of the indigene was not slaughter but _disease_. One of these iconoclasts even claimed that it was the Chinese and other Asians who had brought the deadly diseases to Australia. How many Chinese did Cortez take with him into America? Another defender of ethnic cleansing claimed that the Aborigines should thank God that they were "displaced by Christian people". On the contrary, I think that the Indians and Chinese might have treated the indigenes better. Their historical record, from the Arabian Sea to the Gulf of Tonkin, down to Bali, suggests that.

It would not be quite fair to apply the aphorism "The criminal cannot forgive the victim he has defiled" to those who deny what they call the 'black armband' view of Australia's history. Why someone who cannot claim any ancestors who 'cleared' the land so vehemently rejects an honest view of a black history, makes sense only if one accepts that such people have strong tribal affinities, ie _their_ people could not have behaved so brutally; or that, because that was normal colonial behaviour then, the perpetrators cannot be judged by current criteria for morality. I have had similar statements made to me when I occasionally refer to my exposure to Aussie racists. Some of these defenders of past brutality, however, confuse guilt with responsibility. That is, they cannot accept that today's generation has a moral responsibility to compensate, but without any sense of guilt, for the damage done by earlier generations. Then there is the worrying issue of compensating an inferior species for something that is denied. Compensation which could result in land being returned to the blacks which might contain valuable minerals that could be flogged, in traditional Aussie style, to foreign corporations is a real concern. Then there is the financial cost of compensation. Worse still, that the blacks might end up being very wealthy, is a further worry for some whites.

The same sort of negative attitudes surfaced when the report on the 'stolen generations' was released, except that the counter-attack was strangely bitter. The authors of the report, their motives, methodology, definitions, and findings were all attacked, but only by a noisy handful. The semanticists, pretending to be fair, focused on the meaning of 'stolen' and the scope of the word 'generation'. The other critics, seemingly less erudite, simply went ballistic, with all manner of quaint arguments. Yet, no one could deny, that many, many, lighter-skinned children were removed from their mothers (pounded may be a more appropriate term in some cases) in ways which were both immoral and illegal. Can the white tribe do no wrong?

The claimed motivation for removing the children seemed to be multi-faceted. The need to save them from a terrible future amidst the dust of the cattle stations was one claim. A related caring claim was that, as part-whites, they could be assimilated through separation from their mothers and the rest of their people. If these motives were genuine, how did those in authority see the rights of the mothers and their communities? Since the children were to become no more than servants, what did assimilation offer them? In the event, what does this policy say about the morality of those involved? A more honest motive was to 'to fuck them white', in order to avoid a biological throwback to their indigenous heritage. Preventing the allegedly 'quick-breeding half-caste' from contributing to the growth of the creole community seems a more honest motive. As the Aborigine was then seen to be an early version of the Caucasian stock, there were thus hopes of breeding out the black peoples as a whole. But was there any intention to have white families adopt these poor kids, as claimed by a friend of mine? What were the odds of white families even considering such adoptions? I am inclined to believe that some did.

The ultimate aim was to achieve that white nation in all its purity. In this attempt, many scientists carried out all manner of tests and measurements on the indigenes for decades. It was all so futile, as even those with just a hint of Aboriginal heritage, whilst looking quite Caucasian, now seem to reject their white ancestors. Is this because their white forebears did not enable them to be integrated into the white mainstream? Or, indeed, did not even accept them as their own progeny?

The maltreatment of many of these 'pounded' children is now well documented. They were forbidden to speak their language; denied food, clothing and blankets at times; physically and sexually abused; and not taught to read and write. So said many of the survivors of the policy. The priesthood does not come out too well from this experiment either. But, why punish the children for the sins of their parents? Who were the sinners? Weren't they the white men who sired them so casually without accepting responsibility? Or, like rape victims, does one blame the women, or perhaps their 'culture'? To claim that the intent of the practice of removing the fairer children was of the highest order was to ignore what actually happened. For those clever people denying that there was a travesty of justice in the 'pounding' program, to then argue that only the adversarial process in a court of law can establish reliably the facts of the 'pounding', is to reject a very substantial part of official history, archaeology, and similar studies, and related academic disciplines.

There seems to be clear evidence of white males in the outback travelling with a black teenager in tow (a sort of multi-purpose slave); of masters of cattle stations and their white employees 'begatting' and then ignoring their mixed-blood offspring; of black drovers being ordered to stay out until the sun went down, so that the white men "... could go and fuck ... the gins ..."; of Aboriginal women who had been "... raped by whites, Greeks, Japanese, Chinese or whatever ..." (indicating the common ends of many men in the outback). Yet, there are people attempting to play down the atrocities of the past by seeking to denigrate anyone who displays undue sympathy for the blacks, and to diminish the blacks themselves in significant ways. In this context, I am generally spoken to as an 'honorary white'. Whilst the attacks and denigration are merely indicative of the white tribe defending its own, an interesting alternative explanation was offered by a public spokesman for this tribe.

That is, those who favour certain policy prescriptions for the treatment of the indigenes, presumably with the most honourable of intentions, tend to interpret history differently from the rest of us! Wow! Little wonder that the level of intellectual exchange in Australia is held to be low! But, is it not logical to start with what are agreed to be facts and then devise appropriate policies? Another defender of the pristine purity of the 'discoverers' of Australia believes that the facts of history must be drawn only from official archives. If the killings were not documented, then there could not have been any killing! So, there goes much of the Old and New Testaments which, surely, did not draw upon official archives. And, of course, officials do not ever sanitise official documents, do they? And scholars do not allow their prejudices and private beliefs to be used as filters, do they? It is therefore worth pointing out that Afrikaaner politicians in apartheid South Africa, and venomous snakes everywhere, have been described by their respective defenders as 'sincere' in what they did. In which case, is it not a pity that the beneficiaries of such sincerity suffered so much?

One might also expect that any community leader would understand instinctively how the loss of children denies the continuity of heritage to the family, the clan and the tribe. Any human being would suffer, through empathy, for the feelings of those torn away: the terrible sense of injustice arising from separation from parents and siblings; the loneliness of deprivation of family, clan and community, and its replacement by master/slave (or servant) relationships, or even colder and often cruel institutional upbringing; the uncertainty of cultural belonging, and of one's proper place and role in society; the sense of inadequate acculturation and an unclear identity, without pride in ancestry, ethnic or tribal origins, and traditional customs; and of the insecurity injected continuously into one's psyche about one's inferiority — of blood, skin colour, culture. I speculate about the psychological problem of 'feeling black' whilst 'acting white'.

Whilst white defenders of the indefensible keep shoring up the crumbling defences of white hegemony and purity of intent, the blacks are, most sensibly, not focusing upon the past. They do not regurgitate the collective memory of deleterious consequences of the eugenics policy; the price of enforced sharing of official settlements and reserves which broke the links with their traditional lands; the exploitation on cattle properties which would not have been viable without underpaid black stockmen and the cost-free access to black women by white employees and bosses; or the damage to Aboriginal 'story places' which were 'no entry' zones, in order to protect the continued productivity of a fragile environment. These zones were opened up by Christian missionaries. In their 'absolute ignorance' and 'indomitable indifference', they exorcised these 'no entry' zones, thus enabling environmental degradation.

Because of a very substantial lack of appropriately qualified and experienced indigenous people, Aboriginal organisations seeking to serve and lead their people have relied on white employees and consultants. This, reportedly, is an extremely costly approach. There is also a very substantial cultural risk in this practice, as many of the employing Aboriginal organizations may already have learnt. Foreign advisers cannot be expected to apply the perspective of employers with a different sociological and politico-cultural background, and a psychologically divergent mind-set. Anglo-Celt solutions, derived from Anglo-Celt problem situations, cannot surely be relied upon to be the best practice in solving the socio-economic problems of the various Aboriginal communities, with their probably substantially different, and possibly inadequately understood historical cultural experiences. Given the propensity for social policies in Australia to follow those in operation in the USA, especially just when these policies are becoming challenged there, it is no wonder that there has been little significant improvement in the life chances of the Australian indigene.

Then, there is the white media. It could be relied upon to be diligent in highlighting minor and relatively unimportant delays and discrepancies in the financial accounting by the smaller agencies associated with the Aborigine and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), and to throw a powerful and persistent spotlight upon any allegations of misdirected spending by ATSIC. This practice sustains the negative views about the black leadership held by the normally ill-informed white population. The public was certainly never informed about the government's cunning in providing very limited funds to meet very vast needs; or that about half of ATSIC's budget was dole money for Aborigines. The ATSIC Community Development Employment Program required unemployed Aborigines to work for their dole. It was the Aborigines themselves who initiated this practice. They thought that it was wrong to receive 'sit down' money from the government.

It was fascinating, in contrast, to read and hear some churchmen, welfare deliverers, and all manner of people one might normally consider as responsible citizens noisily criticising the work-for-the-dole scheme when it was planned to apply to the non-indigene. The scheme was said to be demeaning; did not provide real training or real jobs; damaged self-esteem (doing anything for money below the level of skill and responsibility that one generously attributes to oneself is always so damaging); and so on. Mutual responsibility vs. something for nothing? Engendering necessary attitudes to, and preparation for, work? Churchmen supporting sloth? What a wonderful insight this furore provided into the values upheld by some of those associated with the welfare industry. Why weren't these protesters whingeing about the blacks having had to display mutual responsibility?

In any event, the predictable finally eventuated. ATSIC was emasculated, seemingly from without and within. Then it was abolished. Mainstreaming Aboriginal services seems intended. Mainstreaming of service delivery, by all specialist government agencies, has surface appeal, in terms of efficiency and cost effectiveness. However, whether all three levels of government will be adequately funded to satisfy current unmet indigenous needs, and whether government agencies then become colour blind, is problematic. Will federal and state governments now stop funding parallel ethno-specific settlement services, ie will they mainstream such services too? When I recommended that many years ago, it fell on ears deafened by pleas for ethnic empowerment.

A great risk for both the Australia indigenes and other tribal communities guided by white academic theorists and policy advisers, with their own vision of what is appropriate, relates to ownership of land. Community ownership by ethnic Fijians and Aboriginal tribes is seemingly not compatible with the values of supporters of the Hayek/Friedmann school of capitalism. To the latter, land is just another utility, to be traded, exploited, and traded again. They claim that individual ownership rights (where did these rights come from?) can allow increased economic efficiency (in terms of the financial returns from the use of the land) — just like globalisation, whose only justification is also improved economic efficiency. Excluded are considerations of disbenefits, generally of a human and a societal kind. Economists do not deal with such issues — to the detriment of society.

There is thus a downside to both private land ownership and globalisation. Private economic utility is seen by economic purists as over-riding any communal, social or spiritual values associated with land, or the need to prevent unscrupulous buyers from exploiting an unsophisticated individual owner of land (eg Amerindian farmers cheated by whites); or to protect levels of employment, public utility, and sovereignty, in nation-states whose economic entities are being subsumed by foreign owners. The latter cannot be expected to be concerned with the national interest of the foreign nation in which they invest or operate. These are usually huge multi-national corporations offering lower operating costs, and greater shareholder values in that great casino known as the stock market. Their focus tends to be only on short-term returns. Speculative buying and selling in that market, causing or responding to changes in share prices, also produce nothing of value to the nation. But, there will be satisfaction achieved by some persons, akin to that felt by the Mongols marauding in lands occupied by (say) the Russians and other people a few centuries ago — again achieving nothing of durable value.

The bottom line is that the various Aboriginal communities (whether national, regional or local) should, in their traditional ways, be free to solve their problems, using their cultural values and community cohesion. Perhaps necessary government funding should be free of process requirements; but not of specified outcomes. And only a fool would set a time limit on such major remedial matters. Just as ethnic crime requires the affected ethnic communities to recognise that they have a very substantial image problem, and to then organise themselves to work with all the relevant authorities to contain, moderate and educate those at risk turning to violence and crime, so do the various Aboriginal communities need to exercise their communal integrity and leadership to change their policies and practices in appropriate ways; and to guide those at risk. If this means allowing tribal law and associated authority to operate in specified locations, one would hope that the relevant governments and authorities act with understanding and foresight. After all, Australia is a caring nation. It just needs a little more flexibility in its policy stances and operations to allow its indigenes to find their place in the sun.

Apart from more funds, better official policies, and adequate services, the Aboriginal people wanted an official apology from the national government for the way they were treated historically. Confusing the guilt of past generations with the responsibility of the present generation (which I believe is tantamount to saying that 'our ancestral people cannot be judged to be guilty of the alleged crimes against humanity'), the federal government refused. Yet, on advice from the second Aboriginal senator in the federal parliament, it offered its "deep and sincere regret". Even the Pope did better than that in his apology for the historical treatment of the Jewish people by his church. Worse still, a white Anglo-Celt asked why, if today's whites are required to apologise for the sins of their predecessors, the mixed blacks — with their substantial infusion of white genes — should not also apologise for their white antecedents! What an interesting concept of liability, in the context of the transmission of a cultural heritage; and in the circumstances of most of the white fathers apparently refusing to recognise their paternal responsibilities.

I doubt if Australia is yet ready to offer full justice to its black people. It may be that the Aborigines are expected to trade their entitlements to financial compensation and land for equal opportunity and treatment in education and employment, and adequate health and other necessary services.

However, developments in the international arena might augur a new era. There has been a slow shift in emphasis from the rights of individuals to those of tribes. The UN seems to be on its tortoise-like way to codifying the rights of the world's indigenes. The USA, Canada, and the Scandinavian nations have recognised as 'first nations' the 'domestic dependant' (Red) Indians of the USA; the Indians, Inuit and Metis of Canada; and the Inuit, Sami Greenlanders and Faroe Islanders of the nations of Scandinavia. That is, these people are accepted as having been there first, and that they were governed by their own laws. These tribes thereby retained rights of possession over certain lands, and sovereignty rights to conduct their own affairs on these lands. More recently, recognising 4500 years of occupation and sovereignty, the Canadian government returned a substantial parcel of land in the Arctic Circle to the Nunavut people, together with a cash settlement. It will be interesting to see if white people end up owning significant sectors of the land, or come to dominate the Nunavut administration.

Australia's Aborigines and the Torres Strait Islanders are also first nation peoples. Hopefully, Australian governments will accept a fiduciary duty of care in the way the governments of the USA and Canada have. However, the Australian indigenes' desire for self-determination (the precursor of a separate nation?), and the need for local communities in the outback to sort out their specific social problems in situation-specific ways, might encourage recalcitrant governments to continue to drag their corporate feet. There is also a grave risk, at all levels, that the normal competitive urge for power by ambitious indigenous leaders will result in the people being divided (an example is evident in Afghanistan), and progress derailed.

In this context, the Aboriginal people, again at all levels, have to take responsibility for making that great effort required to break the ethos reflecting past treatments. They should not claim to be, or be treated as, victims in perpetuity, although the victim role is becoming a national pastime in Australian society. They can avoid any temptation to wallow in the memory of past injustices, as former (coloured) colonial subjects have. They can keep their homes and surrounds tidy, as poor Asian villagers do. They can keep their children clean, well fed, well-motivated to study and to prepare themselves to survive in a competitive world, and to clean up their own lifestyles, as poor Asian peasants do. Strong clan ties do not have to result in drunkenness, fighting, and destroyed property. Other poor societies, in Asia and elsewhere, confirm this.

Apologies and reconciliation are fine, but material and political progress requires putting the past behind, and pulling up one's socks. Some claimed traditional practices might have to be ditched. Adaptation is the name of the game. Any attitude of dependence too will need to be overcome. My ancestors demonstrated this get-up-and-go ethic when the colonial boss-cocky did his best to keep us inferior and subservient. Any coloured immigrant with exposure to colonialism will empathise with the Aborigine seeking to stand tall as an equal; and encourage the latter to do so.

At another level, as first nation peoples, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (TSI) do have a legal right to exercise sovereignty over their land. The TSI should pose no problem. They seem to be on their way to self-determination in a number of responsibilities, eg internal customary law and order, education, health, welfare, and dole work for community development. As with Norfolk Island, they could progress to self-government within the sovereign nation-state of Australia.

As for Aboriginal people, they could live in cohesive collectives in definable geographical areas, even if these areas are not contiguous. Essential requirements would be that tribal and language differences, whilst retained, be merged into an Aboriginal nation, with equal status and rights for all within it. They would occupy and control their own lands, as suggested above for the TSI. Azerbaijan, the USA and Russia come to mind as examples of nations with component parts separated geographically. Australia would then be a nation-state containing three component self-governing entities. Presumably, those white Australians and representatives of certain NGOs (non-government organisations) who are reportedly working for the separation of coloured Christian enclaves from a multi-religious Indonesia would support the creation of an Aboriginal nation.

How will the Aborigines acquire that land base they need to establish their nation? In recent years, black communities have acquired parcels of land, often against strident opposition. This opposition included local governments and, in one case, a Territory government. The land holding takes a variety of legal forms. It includes freehold land; as well as leasehold land held in trust; and crown land reserved for Aboriginal people. Much was, and is still being achieved through land rights laws introduced by some state governments and through federal funding. Against opposition from a local government council, a state government negotiated relatively recently for the transfer of a parcel of crown land to an Aboriginal community. Beaches and other public recreation facilities were, however, to be protected for public use. Environmental protection was part of the agreement. Land of cultural significance would revert to the Aboriginal community. As Aboriginal communities, with increasing confidence, make claims to un-alienated Crown land to which they can establish a traditional link, and as Gaia retaliates against some of the farming practices of the past, more whites might come to understand a little of what it must have been like to lose the land which is integral to one's existence and culture.

Then the High Court opened up a very large can of worms when it determined (in the _Mabo_ case in 1992) that the TSI (and, by implication, the Aborigines) had _native title rights_ under common law. This did not help to contribute land to an Aboriginal or TSI nation. A native title right refers simply to a _residual_ right to _share_ in the use of land, but only in a _customary_ way. Under the High Court's later determination (in the _Wik_ case in 1996), the rights of the Aboriginal community are subordinate to that of the lessee.

In the Mabo case, the Court said: "Where a clan or group has continued to acknowledge the laws and ... to observe the customs based on the traditions of that clan or group, whereby their traditional connection with the land has been substantially maintained, the traditional community title of that clan or group can be said to remain in existence". Native title refers to the common law rights of access and use of traditional land by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The rights include hunting, gathering, fishing, ceremonies, and just living.

The High Court thus put away for good that useful argument favoured by settlers and Australian jurists that Australia had been an empty land ('terra nullius') when occupied by Britain, contrary to all the evidence against that view. The Court, by finding that the indigenes of Australia had indeed been in _possession_ of their lands, brought the law in relation to Aboriginal land rights into line with current standards of justice. As the eminent historian Prof. Henry Reynolds said, "Terra nullius was out of step with international standards of human rights, on the one hand, and with fundamental values of common law, on the other ...". Mr. Justice Deane of the High Court (subsequently Governor-General of Australia in the late 1990s) remarked back in 1985 that "The common law of this land has not reached the stage of retreat from injustice", in relation to the nation's recognition of native title.

However, justice did arrive at last — at least, in the legal realm. In the mid 1990s, the High Court again upset the conservatives, the racists, and sundry fellow travellers. The resulting outbursts were most illuminative, displaying a range of bitter and irrational assertions, suggesting that professed beliefs in law and justice by many in influential positions (including parts of the media) are not deeply held. As Thomas Carlyle said "Can there be a more horrible object in existence than an eloquent man not speaking the truth?".

The High Court, by a majority decision (in the Wik case), held that a pastoral lease did not necessarily extinguish native title. In some cases, some native title rights can survive the grant of a lease. However, in any conflict between the pastoralist's rights and native title rights, the former rights prevail. Reportedly, the decision took into account an official policy dictated from the UK in 1848 that the grant of a pastoral lease gave "... only an exclusive right of pasturage for their cattle and of cultivating such land as they may require ...", but that the lease was "... not intended to deprive the Natives of their former right to hunt over these districts, or to wander over them in search of subsistence, in the manner they have been hitherto accustomed".

Following the Wik decision, farmers and pastoralists on Crown pastoral leases sought 'certainty' for themselves, by the federal government formally extinguishing native title. Certainty also means the freedom to diversify their operations beyond the terms of existing leases. This would effectively make the leases _de facto_ freehold, independently denying any native title right. Since many of the leases are reportedly already being used for a wide range of purposes, the question is how a pastoral lease, which is surely for pasturage of cattle, allowed _full scale_ farming (as distinct from farming for sustenance). More intriguing was the claim that certain governments had ignored the law in granting mining leases.

The federal government then contributed to the panic that followed. What about our backyards, swimming pools, and tennis courts; can they take them too? This was asked by the newest demagogue then. The threat of Aboriginal intervention under native title will reduce the transfer value of the leases — this was yet another whinge. Apparently this has not happened yet. The federal government did little to allay these fears. Indeed, many of us realised that the government was actually fuelling irrational fears. A white female pastoralist was reported in the late 1990s to have been fearful when her property was the subject of a native title claim by an Aboriginal community. She thought that, if successful, the Aborigines would simply take possession of her property. After she had met the claimants, she knew otherwise. Why had not the government or the media made this clear? Were they in cahoots with the powerful pastoralist lobby groups? It seems so.

She learnt that the Aborigines' aim was co-existence. They only wanted _access_ to significant sites to conduct cultural activities for young people. She was quoted in the press as saying: "When sheep and cattle were moved in, the land the indigenous people lived off was badly affected. They had to find other ways to survive, and the problems were compounded by the aggressive acts of the pastoralists and the local white authorities. During the 1920s and 1930s indigenes were herded together in designated Aboriginal reserves, with little shelter and no water. The communities were split up, their culture fragmented. They gravitated towards the edges of towns ... ended up outcasts, on the fringes of white society". Where politicians had promised 'certainty' to the pastoralists, she reportedly felt that she had been kept in the dark, misled, and betrayed. She was further quoted as follows: "... people like me were being used as tools, in what was obviously a political agenda being used to continue the hurt and dispossession of people who have been hurt their whole lives"; and "... there are people fanning the flames and spreading misinformation". She also quoted the Prime Minister of the day as claiming publicly that it would be possible for 78% of Australia to be under 'veto' (for development) by Aborigines. Has the government resiled from this ridiculous claim?

Her comment to that was: "I've no doubt that most Australians would have believed him. If I hadn't informed myself, I'd have believed him as well". Her final comments are noteworthy. "I did not hunt the (Aborigines) off their land: but what I have today I have partly because others did. If I inherited the fruits of the pioneers' achievements, I also inherited a debt to those they dispossessed."

That says it all. And what a wonderful human being — a beacon of light. This enlightened white lady has reached out to the Aboriginal people. She is also educating people in her situation about the need to work with Aboriginal people. As asked by a respected academic in another, but comparable, context: "If lying comes to seem an acceptable political means to a worthwhile end, what will prevent democracy degenerating into a struggle between elites whose relationship to the electorate goes no deeper than the conduct of an auction ...?". In any such auctions, the Aborigines will not be viable bidders.

After a lot of thunder, lightning and hot air had upset everyone, the government got through a 'ten-point plan', with the help of an independent senator. In the late 1990s, when the national Parliament pushed through legislation to reduce the property rights of the indigene inherent in native title, it was the whites (politicians, clergymen, and legal advisers) who reportedly decided (yet once again) what was best for the Aborigines. The latter said that they were excluded from the negotiations! Overall, it was a despicable exercise. The risks of having the blacks go walkabout on _leased_ land (ie public-owned land), of their having any kind of a say in the potential use of this land, of any diminution in the government's freedom to be generous to its supporters, was all too much for the government, and its pastoral and mineral constituencies.

The federal government cannot, of course, extinguish native title without paying compensation. As a consequence, there was a fine juggling act between the federal and state (and territory) governments in the late 1990s. The latter governments were now to provide a statutory regime acceptable to the former, which would achieve an _effective_ extinguishment of native title rights — but which did not cost much to taxpayers, and did not violate the Racial Discrimination Act and sundry international obligations! This was not asking too much, was it? This federal government approach is akin to a white colonial government employing coloured mercenaries to carry out the more dastardly acts of subjugation of other coloured peoples (eg Gurkhas against the Maoris of New Zealand). Was it not St.Paul who said, "We wrestle ... against spiritual wickedness in high places"? The indigenes and their supporters were both up in arms and despondent, realising that their recently acquired justice was short-lived. Consequently, the only appeal mechanism available (for what that is worth) is in the international arena. For some inexplicable reason, I keep recalling Arnold Toynbee's "No annihilation without representation", whenever extinguishment of Aboriginal native title is mentioned.

Black militancy therefore started to rise; notwithstanding that pleading for fair treatment, and attempted low-key negotiation, is the path preferred by indigenous leaders. Name-calling and personal abuse began to develop a reciprocal flow. For example, the term 'racist scum,' expressed by a respected black leader against certain white people, hit the headlines in the late 1990s. Whilst many expressed horror, few people would have been surprised — why should not Aussie whites experience reciprocity in disdain and denigration? As a prominent black activist pointed out, militancy is a reaction to sustained racial discrimination. Sadly, black youth are now observed to be rudely assertive about their claimed rights. For example, in a public park, teenage blacks told a group of whites: "Piss off, white c...s; this is our land".

Assuming against all the odds, however, that the indigenes of Australia are able, eventually, to acquire (through the courts, by government grants, and by purchase) enough land for their stated objectives of self-determination, it would be interesting to see if the High Court would uphold a claim of residual _sovereignty_. Such a decision would underpin, with undeniable strength, any arrangement for the expression of a degree of self-government or self-management.

The redoubtable historian, Prof. Henry Reynolds, set the cat amongst the pigeons by noting that the Australian High Court had not dealt with the issue of _sovereignty_ when it dealt with the associated issue of land rights. He stated that "the High Court's decision to recognise prior rights of property but not sovereignty lines Australian law up with the international lawyers writing at the high noon of imperialism". This decision has therefore left intact the traditional view that, when the British annexed parts of the Australian continent in 1788, 1824, 1829 and 1879, the Crown acquired sovereignty over the land; and that sovereignty is indivisible. The professor argues instead that, under international law, sovereignty is a 'collection of powers', often 'separated one from another'; that British colonial arrangements displayed a division of sovereignty, ranging from spheres of influence, to protectorates, to outright colonial possession; and that both the USA and Canada have accepted that their indigenous peoples have residual rights of sovereignty, carried over from pre-colonial days; and that such rights can be extinguished by the state, but only by a 'clear and plain intention to do so'. It was also British colonial policy to recognise customary or traditional law, where established by usage, and where not inconsistent with British concepts of justice.

I also note that the High Court ignored the issue of sea rights under native title. As for claims by Torres Strait Islanders for sea rights, were the government to be driven by justice, it could foster the development of fishing co-operatives by these Islanders, and issue them with exclusive licences to fish in the seas they claim as theirs.

So, is there some doubt about sovereignty in Australia? Sovereignty to the Crown by occupation on the one hand, and residual sovereignty to Aborigines by prior right on the other? As indigenous peoples, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders would seem to have rights to self-determination. This includes the right to autonomy or self-government in certain areas, especially in relation to maintaining and developing their cultural distinctiveness. Would this also include the right to special seats in the federal parliament? So, I ask: can the Aussie black afford to have a dream, as did the Afro-Americans a generation ago?

Special arrangements, including a treaty, for a small cultural minority would be abhorrent to those inured to political dominance by white people over all others — as in the colonial era. Special arrangements could be abhorrent also to a nation of diverse but _assimilated_ peoples — as in the White Australia era. Or even to a multicultural nation-state composed of a variety of tribes who have _integrated_ (but not assimilated) with the mainstream population. Yet, if after more than 200 years, the indigenes of Australia still want to remain separate peoples and to control their way of living, how can they, as first nation peoples, be denied? Is it not time for them to receive their share of justice? After all, isn't Australia already a multicultural nation? Perhaps what is needed is for the colour-sensitive Aussie to stop fearing that the blacks will become rich and politically powerful. What if some of them do? As Nelson Mandela said, "As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others".

In time, there should be no more nonsense uttered about how some very ancient Aboriginal works of rock art in Australia, probably the oldest rock art in the world, could not possibly have been created by Aborigines. Apparently this rock art depicts a lifestyle divergent from that of the Aborigines as we have known them. But, no one knows how long the Aborigines have been in Australia, where they came from, and who else joined and merged with them. We do not know whether major climatic changes occurred which might have altered the relationship between the indigenes and their environment, and which affected their lifestyles. After all, even relatively recent history (of only a few thousand years ago) is indecipherable, eg the Indus Valley civilisation. That civilisation appears to have been well advanced, both materially and conceptually, before Mycenae was established. Yet no one seems to know what happened to it.

Hopefully, the nation will also disavow whites pretending to be blacks in their writings and art. To a coloured person (especially a disadvantaged one), such pretence is downright insulting. How on earth can a white feel what it is like to be treated as an inferior black, any more than a male can claim to feel the pangs of childbirth? Hopefully, when those making all manner of derogatory statements about the indigene and other coloured peoples move on to meet the universal Creator, Australia will become a truly civilised nation. As Einstein said: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the former".

"The world is white no longer, and it will never be white again", said US author James Baldwin. What a solace to those trying to acquire a nice tan; and to those who are free to determine their own fate.

And a clever Aboriginal hit the nail on the head thus:

You white fellah

Wen you born, you pink

Wen you grow up, you white

Wen you get sick, you green

Wen you go out in sun, you go red

Wen you get cold, you go blue

Wen you scared, you yellow

And wen you die, you purple.

And you got the cheek to call me coloured.

I suggest that we should take to heart the conscience-arousing words of Xavier Herbert: "Until we give back to the Blackman just a bit of the land that was his and give it back ... without anything but complete generosity of spirit in concession for the evil we have done him, until we do that we shall remain what we have always been, a people without integrity; not a nation but a community of thieves". We also need to accept that tomorrow's children (black, white and brindle) will need to offset, and compensate for, the sins of their demographic ancestors, especially the colonial fathers of this nation.

At the beginning of the new millennium, the Law of Karma, operating through the unpredictable El Nino, is driving white farmers off their fragile land — possibly for good. Two centuries of misuse — through ignorance or greed — have caused substantial ecological damage. Widespread salinity and dying river systems are the principal areas of concern. There is a lot of wailing, and a lot of taxpayer money spent on assisting those so affected. There was, however, no such compensation or sympathy for the blacks in their day. Perhaps the blacks will teach the whites, now that the latter have some inkling of the agony of the former, how to live _with_ this harsh land. The lesson is to become custodians of the land, linked to it in spirit.

In a successful symbiotic relationship, Gaia will not care whether her partner is white, black or brindle. Indeed, as scientist Lyall Watson said: "We are the eyes and ears of the earth; and we think the world's thoughts".

### Chapter 4

Which way to the Cosmos?

"Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." — J.B.S. Haldane

**I** well remember being taught, at about the age of eight, that the universe is without beginning or end. It was part of my acculturation. My mother, well read in our tribal language, and with a strong belief in our religion, started me on this path. She thus planted the seeds of a significant search — for understanding the meaning of life. This search was to stimulate and sustain me for the rest of my life.

Whilst on this path, at eighteen, I read about the cosmological theory then in vogue in the world of science. This theory said that the universe is without beginning or end. So, what was new? In the 1950s, especially after the turbulence of the Second World War, this Stationary State Universe was eminently acceptable. Stability, especially in the heavens, is also inherently satisfying. Sometime later, however, I read that a quaint Big Bang theory was challenging this view. This new theory postulates a finite beginning (something out of nothing), infinite expansion, and no perceivable end. Years later, however, there came the belated and grudging acceptance of the probability of a Big Crunch — suggesting a quite specific and nasty end. It was subsequently conceded that there could be infinite cycles of Bang and Crunch; and even some mini-cycles in between. This could lead to the universe again being seen as without beginning or end. The ancient Hindu view, of life and time being cyclical, was back in fashion.

I had also read about ancient Hindu writings, such as the _Mahabharatha,_ which tell of fantastic battles, involving weapons which seem to many to be of a nuclear kind. There are descriptions of terrain which apparently suggest an aerial perspective, eg of Sri Lanka. There are also direct references to flying vehicles (vimanas). Fanciful myths? Since myths are essentially rational attempts to explain complex and confusing matters of a metaphysical nature, eg origins, as well as events and experiences of major significance, could ancient myths somehow resemble modern descriptions?

My reading had, regretfully, been very substantially in English. I had, by early adulthood, lost my mother tongue through a totally unpredictable chain of events, both peculiar and pervasive. Was this Destiny at work? Whilst I do not like the idea of predestination, one must in such circumstances not have a closed mind. My position was one of the ironies of the modern Asian's material progress, mainly because of his exposure to European colonising influences. The European colonisers did not only intentionally destroy viable, well established local industries — in order to expand the markets for their goods. These policies inflicted deleterious consequences upon local communities, their lifestyles and their life chances. They also undermined those cultural traditions which obstructed the saving of heathen souls to Christ. In the event, the modern Asian often needed scholars of the West to tell him about his own cultural heritage and its history. This, whilst useful, also potentially distorted the past. The reading of Asian history and pre-history, through the prism of the colonising Christian's political and cultural perspective (and therefore prejudice), does seem to have distorted, to some extent, the interpretations of Asia's philosophies and cultures.

Historical sequences and events, especially the movements and impacts of tribal populations, as traditionally taught, are now claimed by some more modern Western scholars (as well as local scholars) to be in error. Particularly worrying are the links between languages and ethnic or tribal peoples. Attempted explanations based on art, coinage, clothing or architecture might be more fanciful than scholarly. That hoary but quaint theory that everything beautiful in appearance, and complex in thought, originated with the claimed ancestors of the Europeans, the Greeks, is now not credible. The situation is worse for those Asians who had migrated into foreign climes, and who now want to discover or refresh their own cultural roots (as do the Afro-Americans).

Yet, many Western scholars are well able to guide such immigrant Asians, because they had become genuinely and objectively interested in Eastern philosophies. In much the same way, Western scholars had once relied on their Muslim counterparts (in about the twelfth century AD) to discover the great Greek philosophers. In recent times, many European scholars had set out to understand the minds which had articulated the great philosophies arising in Asia. The publication of these novel and challenging perspectives in Europe had spread these insightful approaches into the West's scholarly world. Subsequently, the true seekers of the West, with open hearts and minds, brought out the wisdom of the East, to the benefit of all mankind.

For example, the core Hindu metaphysics focuses on the mind as the medium of knowing, studying the states of consciousness. According to the (Asian) Indian American scholar Easwaran, the "powers of nature" are regarded as "only an _expression_ of the more awe-inspiring powers of human consciousness". Thus, when the Hindus' _Upanishads_ asks: "What is that one, by knowing which, we can know the nature of everything else?", the answer is given as consciousness. Since a law of nature must apply uniformly and universally, a science of consciousness "holds the promise of central principles that unify all life". I find this fascinating. In consequence, by modern times, many Western philosophers and cosmologists have clearly adopted, indeed adapted, some of these perspectives in their own efforts to explain the universe and its component parts, including mankind. Indeed, some leading cosmologist thinkers in recent times read like Hindu philosophers.

Behind the written form of Hindu philosophical treatises, there stood an oral tradition of very long duration. The Indians were apparently not inclined to formalise, especially in a prescriptive way, their speculative perceptions of the Cosmos. The origin of some of the philosophy may therefore lie very far back in history. An Indian scholar apparently claims that the Vedic Age commenced in India about 9000 years ago; and that the Saraswati-Indus Valley civilisation collapsed in the period 2000 to 1500 BC through natural causes, with consequential chaos and migration. He also asserts that there is no mention of Aryans in the Indian records. At the time of its collapse, it seems (according to a Western scholar) that the Indus Valley civilisation "was already one thousand years old, thriving, and advanced in technology and trade".

Whilst adherents of ancient civilisations tend to have a competitive perspective about the longevity of their cultural heritage, the contribution by the Indus Valley culture to the civilisation in India may have been substantial. According to another scholar, traces of the _mysticism_ which lies at the core of Indian civilisation were evident in "an iconography of yogic practice" in the Indus Valley culture. Whilst it would take a little time for modern Indian scholars to sort out their pre-history, it is a fact that an Indus Valley civilisation existed, and then disappeared. Could the alleged references in the _Mahabharatha_ to aerial warfare and devastation of a nuclear type have come from that Indus Valley civilisation? Where else could they have come from? Could there have been an even earlier civilisation in that region?

What did happen to the Indus Valley civilisation? A Jewish scholar, who seems to have set out to verify the early writings of his people, claimed (in mid-twentieth century) that a major catastrophe, triggered by an extra-terrestrial agent, brought to a sudden end "the entire ancient East", at the same time (about 1500 BC) that the Indus Valley civilisation disappeared. The scholar (I. Velikovsky) claimed that the cause of the destruction of the Indus Valley civilisation is not known. Yet, he says that "... the facts brought forth by (archaeologist) R.E. Mortimer Wheeler strongly suggest to various scholars" (including one H.K. Trevaskis) that it was a _natural,_ and not a man-made, catastrophe.

Is this credible? Sir Arthur Evans, an expert on ancient Crete, is quoted by Velikovsky as reporting that a great catastrophe destroyed the culture of Middle Minoan Two; and that this was "... synchronical with the end of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt and the Exodus" (of the Jewish people from Egypt). This would have been about 1500 BC. It is now accepted that the volcanic eruption of Thera (Santorini), four times more powerful than Krakatoa's explosion in the nineteenth century, occurred about 1500 BC; and that the Cretan civilisation was destroyed by it.

Velikovsky also quotes Claude F.A. Schaeffer as concluding that, at the end of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt, "an enormous cataclysm took place that ruined Egypt, and devastated by earthquake and holocaust, every populated place in Palestine, Syria, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, the Caucasus and Persia". Schaeffer's findings were based upon excavations all over the ancient East, "where populations were decimated or annihilated, the earth shook, the sea irrupted, and the climate changed".

Schaeffer is claimed to have discerned six separate major upheavals by nature. All of these catastrophes "simultaneously overwhelmed" the entire known East, including Egypt, on each occasion. Some of these catastrophes "closed great ages in the history of ancient civilisations". This is a very significant claim. The major ancient catastrophe studied by Schaeffer took place about 2400 BC, bringing destruction from Troy (in Asia Minor — now Turkey) to the Nile. (Troy had been rebuilt and destroyed many times.) However, Velikovsky goes further and says that "there were global catastrophes in _prehuman_ times, in _prehistoric_ times, and in _historical_ times", implying (on the basis of the last two that he had examined) that they were all _extra-terrestrial_ in origin.

This was a most controversial claim. It challenged the received wisdom, in recent times, of relative stability in the heavens. Fifty years later, the debate has not lost any of its heat. Velikovsky, who claimed to have studied all manner of ancient writings, says that the Greek philosopher Aristotle made the first recorded claim of such stability; and that he attempted to change the collective memories of mankind about calamitous catastrophes. Why did Aristotle want a collective amnesia? Interestingly, as a speculative philosopher, Aristotle is reputed to have made some other pronouncements of dubious value. For instance, he is said to have pontificated on women's mouths and the number of the teeth therein, without asking Mrs. Aristotle to open her mouth. He was also of the opinion that it was the right of the Greeks to rule over the lesser mortals in neighbouring Asia.

In recent centuries, Western science apparently proved to its own satisfaction, with the aid of some theologians, that the solar system is stable, and as determined by a Christian God. This was in spite of ancient Hindu and Babylonian writings describing a four-planet heavenly system, presumably Mercury, Earth, Mars and Jupiter. Jupiter and Mars were already known to have caused havoc in the skies and on Earth. Jewish (and other) traditions seemingly reflected the havoc caused by movements in the firmament.

Celestial harmony is, however, a reasonable idea for modern times, given the relative peace in space that mankind has known for about 2700 years. It is also very necessary for Darwin's theory of evolution, which requires lots and lots of disruption-free time. Catastrophic events in space could therefore be denied. It was claimed that, once the sun's planets were created (possibly by a one-off near-collision between the sun and another star, or by the disintegration of the sun's twin), there was stability up there. Anyway, that is how God had ordained it.

Mounted against this picture of celestial peace, however, is the fact that galaxies, which cluster together, do collide and merge as they traverse through space. This has been known for decades. When they do this, they apparently send out electro-magnetic signals, heard on Earth as radio noises. Stars are thrown about in this process. Will there not be (even non-contact) impacts of these on individual planets, and on life on these planets? Would such impacts be effected through a combination of gravitational forces, astrological influences, and electro-magnetic exchanges? A Soviet Russian expert on comets had also concluded (and more recent researches seem to have confirmed) that the comets known to us are of relatively recent origin; that they were born in eruptions from planets; and that in Earth's solar system, the main sources are Jupiter and Saturn. The asteroids orbiting between Mars and Jupiter apparently resulted from collision between planets and comets and other debris.

When man's ancient ancestors set out to propitiate their gods, who were derived from (or were) the planets, was this in recognition of the calamities visited on Earth, both in their times and earlier, by heavenly bodies? This seems most probable. It would certainly seem that planet worship (or appeasement) was universal. It would also mean that modern man's God did not arrange the heavens, unless He was playing celestial bowls.

Much of the evidence for the last two global catastrophes caused by astral bodies (and which was examined by Velikovsky) comes from the collective memory of mankind. This is recorded in the traditions and legends of ancient civilisations; and backed by recent findings in archaeology, geology and astronomy. Classical and sacred literature of East and West, the epics of peoples of the North, and the oral traditions of simpler societies elsewhere (from Lapland to the South Seas, and to the Americas) also provide indicative information. Archaeology provides ancient celestial charts, calendars, sundials and water clocks. Geology provides the physical evidence of instant total destruction, on a global scale; as well as the presence of tropical vegetation in current frozen terrain, and the shifting of the terrestrial axis. Palaeomagnetism confirms the reversal of Earth's magnetic field. Astronomy confirms the violence and instability in the heavens. Since cosmic catastrophes will probably occur in the future, it may be illuminating to see what happened before the mankind of current times gave away astral worship or sky gods in favour of monotheism (one God) or monism (one Being).

If horrendous global catastrophes caused by heavenly bodies have been a feature of existence on Earth, then tribal migrations, re-settlement and related wars, re-conceptualisation of the universe, and re-mythicisation of origins and related matters might have been necessarily repetitive phenomena. Hopefully, there may have been some carry-over of insights and traditions into future generations. The revised myths about the origins of kings in Bali, following repeated incursions by foreign tribes and cultures, is illustrative. New genealogies were created by the newly-arrived Hindu priests, linking Balinese chiefs with Hindu gods, in the sixth or seventh century. Following subsequent incursions by Javanese rulers, the Balinese story of creation was remodelled again, linking Javanese Madjapahit over-lords (overladen with Indian genes?) with Balinese kings. The influence of Indian genes was very visible to me when I watched a Brahmin Balinese priest carrying out his duties at a cremation ceremony. He could have been a relative of mine.

In a parallel manner, it is interesting to speculate that the Aborigines of Australia had left their original homeland because of a major catastrophe way back in history, and that the Indian sub-continent was their homeland. When a Sri Lankan migrant in Australia displays certain facial characteristics that led to him being called 'Abo', there may be some grounds for such a speculation. An Indian anthropologist sitting down with a tribe of Aborigines in the desert over a campfire was intrigued to find (as reported by the press in Australia) that he recognised some of the words being sung. When he sang a piece that he had learnt in his studies with some of India's indigenes, the Australian Aborigines were allegedly astounded. Apparently, they all then joined together in the singing. Plausible or improbable?

According to Velikovsky, in the second last major cosmic catastrophe for mankind, occurring about 1500 BC, a large comet dislodged by Jupiter (through an unknown cause) first appeared in the skies. Significantly, Chinese and Hebrew traditions refer to a new star in the east in the second millennium. The comet passed too close to Earth. The tail of the comet became entangled with its head because of this close contact with Earth, resulting in violent exchanges of electricity. This gave the appearance of a battle between the tail (a column of smoke) and the brilliant globe (head) of the comet. The resulting break up of the smoke column created the appearance of an animal with legs and many heads. Was this event the origin of dragons and serpents in the various mythologies? The legends of China, India, the Middle East and Central America provide cause for such speculation. Indeed, did the Aborigines of Australia find the serpents of their 'Dreamtime' only at this time, or through similar earlier catastrophes? Reportedly, the early depictions of the Aborigines' serpents included horn-like projections from the head.

The approach of two electrically-charged globes (the comet and Earth) produced trumpet-like sounds (says Velikovsky). Legends confirm this too. I wonder whether the conch shells blown in the temples I attended as a youth, producing trumpet-like sounds, reflected the experience of my ancestors in ancient times of such heavenly sounds of orbital clashes. I note that conch shells are blown by other peoples, particularly in the Pacific, in their spiritual ceremonies. Coincidence? Similar origins?

The entry of Earth deep into the tail of a comet could affect its rotation. According to the various legends relating to the second century BC, the sun did not appear for varying periods. The Earth's rotation must have been slowed or stopped temporarily. Indeed, the Chinese said that the sun did not go down for days. This complements the reports that the sun did not rise for some time on the other side of the terrestrial globe. All legends also refer to a wall of water, sky-high, destroying everything in its way. This would have been an absolutely terrifying sight, and not easily erased from the collective memories of the people affected — from the Middle East to further east. There is evidence, from geological excavations, of terrible physical damage, and the remains of long-gone human cultures, vegetation, and animals (including extinct species).

Velikovsky's story is "... of hurricanes of global magnitude, of forests burning and swept away, of dust, stones, fire and ashes falling from the sky, of mountains melting like wax, of lava flowing from riven ground, of boiling seas, of bituminous rain, of shaking ground, and destroyed cities, of humans seeking refuge in caverns and fissures in the rocks in mountains, of oceans upheaved and falling on the land, of tidal waves moving toward the poles and back, of land becoming sea by submersion and the expanse of sea turning into desert, islands born and others drowned, mountain ridges levelled and others rising, of crowds of rivers seeking new beds, of sources that disappeared and others that became bitter, of great destruction in the animal kingdoms, of decimated mankind, of migrations, of heavy clouds of dust covering the face of the Earth for decades, of magnetic disturbances, of changed climates, of displaced cardinal points and altered latitudes, of disrupted calendars, and of sundials and water clocks that point to changed length of day, month, and year, of a new polar star ...".

The final cosmic catastrophe, apparently with two significant events bracketing ongoing heavenly perturbations, was of lesser intensity. In the middle of the eighth century BC, a heavenly body apparently passed too close to Earth, causing the poles to shift and the year to lengthen. About 60 years later, the planet Mars, with its 14 to 16 year cycle, apparently collided with Venus, the comet expelled by Jupiter in the fifteenth century BC. This brought Venus into a nearly circular orbit as a planet, thus saving the world from the terror of its visits every 52 years or so over the preceding 700 years or so.

Velikovsky's reading of legends and literature (which he cites, and are therefore presumably verifiable) highlight some interesting perceptions. The Hindus assert four ages of mankind before the current one. The Persians, and the Mayans say seven ages. Ten ages are claimed not only by the Chinese but also by the Icelanders, with Polynesia settling for nine. Inca, Aztec, Maya, Armenian and Arab legends also attest to catastrophes.

What is an 'age'? The total destruction of a people, so that they start all over again? How could a people ever reach an understanding of the Cosmos if they keep getting knocked down by parts of it? Yet, ancient traditions might be retained in the collective memory, perhaps at the simplest level. Is there any evidence to support this hope? In Australia, the Aborigine may have been exempt from major catastrophes, but this seems improbable.

Could an 'age' be defined simply by the reversal of the Earth's poles, so that, in the new age, the sun now rises in the West; and another age commences with the sun rising again in the East? Plato, the Egyptians, the Koran, the Eskimos, the Mexican Indians, the Chinese, and the Hebrews also refer to the displacement of the poles. Every displacement must cause terrible tragedies. A Chinese emperor is on record as having sent out emissaries to re-discover where the cardinal points were. Could the four major ice age epochs in the current Quatenary Period reflect the sequential reversal of Earth's poles? Further, were the North Pole to be tilted away from the sun for a time (for whatever reason), could glaciation lead to an ice age? I understand that the ice ages have not been adequately explained as yet. The repeated reversals of the Earth's poles may have arisen through electro-magnetic impacts rather than through gravitational impacts. That is, no physical evidence will be available of cosmic intervention.

With a new age, how long does it take the sun to re-appear to feed those still alive? In Mexico, there was once (allegedly) darkness for 25 years. The Senmut ceiling in one of the Egyptian pyramids apparently shows the celestial sphere in reversed orientation; ie the sun is shown as rising in the West. Could modern man afford to hold that ancient civilisations could not have known what they were writing about or depicting? Instead of claiming that anything inexplicable scientifically could not have occurred, we might recall Sagan's advice: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

According to the Indians, between about 1500 BC and up to the eighth century BC, the year was made up of 12 months of 30 days, ie 360 days. All the other known civilisations apparently concurred. Then, for a period, the moon's orbit (for reasons again unknown) changed to a nine-day week. What caused this change? Another minor collision? When the month became 36 days, and the year's length was between 360 and 365¼ days, there were only 10 months in the year. Finally, celestial order was established — about 2700 years ago. So said Velikovsky.

Amongst the ancient literature about hot stones, fires, and other forms of destruction wrought by the catastrophe of the second century BC, there were also strange references to heavenly food, manna, honeylash, and milk in the water. Allegedly, this referred to the _edible_ carbohydrates supposedly found in cometary tails, and which fell to earth. In their claimed wanderings in the desert after the Exodus from Egypt, the Jewish people are said to have found sustenance in this manna. It certainly helps to explain how these people could have survived in the wilderness. Strangely, the writings of other cultures (eg the Indians) apparently support similar claims. It is an incredible thought — that there could be something potentially edible up there rocketing along, awaiting some electro-magnetic process to convert it to food for mankind! The _inedible_ hydrocarbons, also supposedly to be found in cometary tails, fell onto Earth (says Velikovsky). These formed the petroleum deposits that sustain modern civilisation. In those areas where this deposit was aflame, fire worship probably commenced, eg in Persia, whose ancient boundaries extended into Central Asia. The vast oil deposits in Central Asia would therefore suggest that any tribes which entered India and Persia from Central Asia, following the cosmic catastrophes of about 3500 years ago, might have brought fire worship with them.

A number of legends and superstitions also seem to reflect the most recent major catastrophes. The number 13 became inauspicious in the Middle East (says the Jewish Velikovsky) because of the claimed destruction of Egypt's Middle Kingdom on the thirteenth day of the month of 'Thout'. The Jewish Day of Atonement apparently reflects the regular visitation by the comet which eventually became Venus. On this day, the Israelites sent a scapegoat to Azzazel (Venus) as sacrifice. The Egyptians and Arabs also offered sacrifices to Azzazel or al-Uzza.

The worship of the bull by the Hindus, as well as by the peoples of Egypt, Mycenae (they preferred a cow with a star on the brow), Israel, and the rest of the Middle East apparently arose from the initial appearance of the comet Venus. With its coma (likened to hair), the comet gave the appearance of a bull. In ancient Mexico, the appearance of Venus (or Quetzalcohuatl) was likened to a serpent with feathers.

Venus also joined the pantheon of planetary gods in the Middle East and adjacent areas. The Hindus may have Vishnu transmogrified from Venus, whilst retaining the bull — perhaps this reflects the merging of cultures. I recall the bull (cast in concrete) within the precincts of the temple I used to attend in my youth. Whilst it was decorated in the usual way, with a garland of flowers, I do not remember that we paid much attention to it.

Velikovsky appears to have set himself up as a pigeon among the cats when he first presented his thesis. He was attacked mainly because catastrophes were unacceptable in an ordered universe, with its implications about the guiding hand of the Creator. Velikovsky, however, seemingly saw no conflict in the Creator guiding his ancestral flock, using catastrophes to save them on two occasions. Subsequent research seems to have confirmed and added to the scientific evidence he had marshalled (irrespective of whether the Creator had any part in all of this). The picture may not be complete. However, there does not appear to have been any refutation of his use of the available sacred and classic literature. Whilst Voltaire claimed that "Ancient histories are but fables that have been agreed upon", cross-cultural congruence about events might attest to reality.

Were Velikovsky proved to have erred, the attempt to explain the successful exodus of his ancestral people from Egypt, as aided by the parting of the waters, would have to be modified. A recent view is that Moses _et_ _al_ were driven away from Egypt because they were either the unwanted Hyksos, or associated with the Hyksos. The departure of the Semitic ruling class enabled the Egyptians to return to self-rule. However, the parting of the waters would remain problematical. Yet, there seems little doubt that "the period of ca.1700 to 1400 BCE was not only a time of recession or decline in the civilisation of Central Asia, but also in the Near East, if not elsewhere in the world". This included "the collapse of the Indus civilisation ... together with similar crises in Mesopotamia ...". So, was Velikovsky correct?

The uncertainty of the facts of history notwithstanding, mankind may yet be subject to catastrophes because of the intersecting orbits of Pluto and Neptune, or of two of Jupiter's satellites, or of unpredictable arrivals of planetary objects. Modern scientists now seem to accept that collisions did occur in ancient times. One report refers to an asteroid 1 km across, creating a 20 km cavity under the waters off Chile. The results included "rising waves 4 km high", and Earth cooling, because "dust and salt blocked some sunlight". Those planets (and some satellites) which revolve the 'wrong way' may reflect impacts which reversed their poles. The probability of cosmic collisions in the future is now accepted. The collective amnesia sought by Aristotle and his followers in this arena now seems untenable. I wonder if the calamitous events embedded in mankind's collective amnesia, possibly reflecting attitudes of 'don't want to remember' or 'it could not have happened', might be active in our collective unconscious. If so, could what is suppressed then find an outlet in symbolic or mystical form? It would be interesting therefore to trace tribal ritualistic propitiation back to collective subconscious fears; and thence further back to pre-historic impact events.

The extended era of peace in the heavens has certainly enabled minds everywhere to move away from the worship of heavenly bodies based on fear. It may, however, be wise to pay respect to all bodies (heavenly or otherwise) which affect us. In an electro-magnetically linked universe, we are subject, consciously or unconsciously, to all manner of influences. For example, E. Cayce, a modern mystic, claimed that it is our collective mind which causes the catastrophes which befall us! Is this view not curiously congruent with the Hindu view that the powers of nature are only an expression of the powers of human consciousness?

In any event, it would seem that all biological systems are in balance, and in constant communication with one another and with the outside world. An aspect of this balance is that the predominant rhythm in the human brain fluctuates within the range of fluctuations of Earth's magnetic field. Could this somehow explain the mystifying 'natural' way of knowing that very young children display, until they are conditioned to be rational? Or the similarity of myths and folklore over vast oceans and continents when travel should have been virtually impossible? It is also fantastic that six fundamental numbers (ratios) relating to the major physical forces affecting mankind made all this possible. Could such regularities occur by chance?

Because of my own personal catastrophe early in my life, I became deeply interested in matters relating to faith and destiny. I remember lying on my back at the beach, with nothing to look up to except the sky. I remember shaking my fist in the direction of the stars and saying to the gods up there "To hell with you". I had prayed regularly and frequently, and broken enough coconuts to signify my devotion to God. Yet, there I was, with no future (apparently pre-ordained). My existence was precarious, un-buttressed by family or friends. So, there was only one way to go — up. As I struggled to climb up to a firm economic base, I came to realise that there was a coherent current moving me along! The unceasing and unpredictable buffeting was de-stabilising. Yet, I remained afloat. What was the significance of this? How did it all work? As I matured and began to eat well, I embarked upon a search into the various paths to the universal Creator. It is this unending search which I touch upon below. The options available to a seeker are indeed wide. But is there a single track which might subsume all options? Whilst I seek unity in diversity in all matters human and cosmic, like Mahatma Gandhi, "I consider myself a Hindu, Christian, Moslem, Jew, Buddhist and Confucian".

That is, I am a freethinker. I believe all faiths are equal in their potential. The core belief in all faiths represents a yearning to rejoin the Creator — and offers much the same message. I just happened to have been born into the Hindu faith in this life. It is the core metaphysics of this faith which holds me — because its explanation of the complexity of existence is comprehensive, yet simple. Why then am I happy about the value of other faiths? Because I suspect that I have experienced them subjectively in earlier lives on Earth. I am comfortable with, and comforted by, them too — but at a different level. I refer only to that core of each faith, leaving aside the trappings and trimmings added by those who constitute the religious institution surrounding each faith.

Whilst each of us must find his path to the Creator in his own manner and time, I looked at how the adherents of the major faiths in Australia uphold their beliefs; and whether these adherents are contributing to a unified people in the new Australian nation-state. That is, how tolerant are the adherents of each faith of other faiths? Does each faith contribute to inter-communal acceptance? And to an understanding that we are all on different roads to the same destination? Notwithstanding the uncertainties surrounding the distant past; that any reliable knowledge gained now might yet be lost in the next major cosmic collision; that such a collision would have almost all of us ready for that re-cycling that I believe humans are subject to; it might yet be relevant to look at ourselves in our respective inherited or chosen vehicles taking us to either the re-cycling way-station or to the Celestial Abode of the Heavenly Father.

Looking at the simpler human societies, I understand that before the Christian and the Muslim faiths began to compete for their souls, the African peoples believed in all manner of gods, beings, or spirits — just like most members of simple societies. And many still do. Some of these Africans also believed in a universal spirit, of which they were all part, and to which they would return at death. This, strangely enough, is almost Hindu in concept. A proverb from that continent captures that thought well: "Water may flow in a thousand channels, but it all returns to the sea".

In the more advanced societies, which tribe of people initiated the concept of the one god, instead of the many? Who initially conceived a creative (or causal) force (or influence) as intelligence, or energy, or consciousness, or spirit? Who can claim prior authorship? Does it matter? Human beings have a great ability to learn from one another, across vast distances, and in rapid time (akin to crows across the globe learning to remove the tops of milk bottles). When an Egyptian Pharaoh attempted to introduce a belief in the one god, to replace the traditional pantheon, he was said to have been influenced by a foreign wife. Foreign wives were a part of the tradition of kingly rule even then. For example, Emperor Chandragupta of India demanded (and took) from Seleucus (the post-Alexander ruler of the Middle East) a foreign wife. Foreign spouses can thus contribute in a significant manner to the cross-pollination of philosophies and values. Pharaoh's eastern wife was said to have learnt about the one god from philosophers from countries further east. Where did they learn about unity in diversity, especially as a causal agent?

The oldest of the three _desert_ religions represented in Australia claims that a Babylonian wandered to the Mediterranean coast in a roundabout route and, on his way, begat a thought. The religion that he founded intrigues me, because it eventually produced a 'Good Book' with a lot of 'begatting' recorded in it. Some claim that the founders of this religion were the first humans to have 'begat' a single Creator for the universe and all its contents. As a Hindu, I find this claim problematic. How would such a simple people, forever involved in tribal wars, have known about the universe then, without outside human help? Were they not also the same people who, after being told about the one god and their special relationship with that god, continued to offer prayers to local gods, and make sacrifices to the planets? Perhaps they were having a bet each way, and very sensibly so. And did they not also indulge in a little tribal cleansing then in order to occupy their 'promised land'? Could not Abraham have learnt about the one god from more settled and possibly more philosophically advanced tribes in Babylon and elsewhere?

Velikovsky, also a Jew, interestingly enough, quotes the historical Clearchus of Soli thus: "The Jews descended from the philosophers of India. The philosophers are called, in India, Calanians and, in Syria, Jews". Velikovsky also quotes Ambassador Megasthenes (representing Seleucus, ruler of the Middle East around 300 BC) at the Court of Chandragupta in India : "All the opinions expressed by the ancients about nature are found with the philosophers foreign to Greece; with the Brahmans of India and, in Syria, with those called Jews". How interesting. Apart from cutting down the ancient Greeks to size, it links the Semites of the Mediterranean to some of the peoples of India. Why not indeed? When we discussed this, a close Jewish Aussie friend of mine, said to me: "There's a touch of Semite in your appearance". Whilst I am flattered, it is possible that the ancient Semitic philosophers had migrated from lands further east. However, I do prefer to believe in philosophical, rather than genetic, diffusion as the mainspring of learning; and enabled by travel or migration.

The Jewish faith has, most impressively, proved very durable against the onslaughts of Christians, and the osmotic incursions of the East Asian Buddhists. I, whilst nourishing an inexplicable affinity for the Jewish people (a very recent past life?), wonder whether the emphasis on being the Chosen People (presumably to guide the rest of the Semitic peoples into the realms of uprightness and justice) might have misled some into claiming a special relationship with the one god. Why, I wonder, would the sole determinant of mortal man's affairs give special privileges to one tribe out of thousands of tribes on Earth. A clever political leader was, however, obviously able to hold his people together in those terrible times, more than 3000 years ago, by claiming a dialogue of an extra-terrestrial nature.

This leader was not the only human ever to make such a claim. There is a living Western guru, hale and hearty, with a small following (in the yogic mode) in Australia and elsewhere. He claims to have merged fully with the Divine, in both male and female forms. And wonder of wonders — he has claimed that his fusion with the female form was sexual too! In contrast, in India, the famous Ramakrishna claimed to have _seen_ the Divine Mother. He then made history by changing from an illiterate person (seen as a little mad) to an undeniably wise guru.

A number of Australians I have met, irrespective of ethnicity, believe that extra-terrestrials aided evolution on Earth by genetic experimentation. Others believe that the angels who conversed or even copulated with sundry earthlings were well-meaning educated and seductive spacemen. The sudden spurt of intuitive thinking in China, India, Persia and Greece in about the sixth century BC is seen by some as evidence of guidance from cosmic sources. The ability of some currently primitive tribes in Africa to describe accurately certain stellar constellations not visible to the naked eye also suggest to some a degree of extra-terrestrial influence.

The great thinkers who lived near to one another in time were: Confucious and Lao-Tze in China, offering systems of moral behaviour and a view of the Void, respectively; Buddha and Mahavira in India — Buddha pointed out the path of good conduct, and attacked priestly tyranny, whilst Mahavira taught non-violence and avoidance of injury to any living being; Zoroaster in Persia taught about the ongoing struggle between good and evil; and Pythagoras in Greece stressed the moral reformation of society, underpinned by a belief in the transmigration of the soul. Was there a spiritual breeze wafting by, or a beneficial star beaming cosmic wisdom?

The Jewish faith seems to me to be very effective in offering a significant vehicle of identity, covering a people of a variety of geographical and national origins. It cohesively bonds and sustains its supporters in much the same way that my faith in my present life (Hinduism) binds widely spread peoples of a range of origins and tongues, whilst we all seek solace from our Creator. Yet, I was told reliably by a Jewish acquaintance that 50 per cent of the Jewish population of Israel is secular, seeking only sun and sea, as well as cheap land and labour. This tends to confirm the view of the Jewish English Disraeli that a full belly diminishes one's need for God. Nevertheless, the upholding of ancient rituals, some derived from the attempted appeasement of the planets (even if the origins of these are not understood clearly today), would retain many adherents. My Jewish friends see these rituals as communally useful, as they celebrate shared significant experiences in their communion with their Creator. And a sense of shared history is much needed in modern Australia.

What I find pleasing is that Jewish Australians do not seek converts, and do not offend by proclaiming that everyone else is doomed. They are part of the nation in that culturally integrated manner which can contribute to a single national identity. There are clearly some exceptions. These are the Zionists who have expropriated that useful word 'holocaust'; who accuse anyone who is critical of Israel's geo-political and human rights policies as 'anti-Semitic'; and who have successfully biased the Australian government's Middle East policies in favour of Israel. I wonder how the Zionists would respond were one to question how it is that white (mainly East) Europeans could claim land in the Middle East granted by their God to their (surely) coloured cultural ancestors. Is it also the case that the genealogical ancestors of white Jewish people were converts to Judaism from the Caucasion region, as asserted by a Jewish scholar? A Jewish friend of mine could not answer this question.

Jewish legends have, however, left an interesting and valuable legacy. The Freemasons, spread thinly but universally over the world, draw upon the claimed historical experiences of the ancient Jewish people in their rituals. Whether or not some of these rituals initially arose in ancient Egypt (the most probable origin), these rituals are intended as lessons in morality and mortality. Archaic the symbolism might be; yet, the lessons are universal and for all time, and extolling the Creator. The fellowship resulting from the shared spiritual learning experiences is implicit; it bonds and it sustains. Many non-Christian Asians have accepted Freemasonry, practising it in Australia and in their own countries. I have personally found the Jewish history-linked Masonic rituals spiritually inspiring.

Moving on: when I came to Australia, it was with a comfortable feeling about Christians. A few members of my extended clan and quite a few family friends were Christians. In Malaya, any doctrinal differences among the Christians were buried far beneath a heavy layer of tolerance and socialising. I played the violin regularly (and not very well, I hasten to say) for a family singing Christmas carols. Inter-faith acceptance was the norm. It was therefore a shock to me when I arrived to hear so much sectarian bitterness uttered, overlaying Christian prejudice against the infidels and heathens. In Australia, I was frequently invited to convert to Christianity. I soon learnt that it was Catholicism that was offered to me, although a few minority sects kept knocking on my door asking if I had read the Bible. I would tell them that I had three different versions in my library. I do believe that attempted religious conversion is terribly cheeky. The arrogance of the ignorant is quite astounding. Perhaps Malaysia is on the right track. Any attempted religious conversion of another is a criminal offence. Reflecting, probably, other past life experiences, I also reject all authoritarian priesthoods. What is curious is why it is only the Christians who seek converts, professing a superiority that is clearly not defensible. Why not leave the others to find their own way to God?

I have been told that the Roman Catholic Church reached its pre-eminence in Australia, from obviously small beginnings, by the sustained exhortations by its priests for their flocks to go forth and multiply. Enthusiastic practice by the adherents, as claimed by many of my good friends, reinforced this guidance. Enforced conversions at marriage sucked in spouses of other faiths, and their offspring. The adherents are now in a position to dominate a culturally diverse secular nation, and are quietly doing so. The tendency of the conservative government of the 1990s to kowtow towards this church, in its attempts to wean the Catholics from the Labor Party (their traditional chariot of war), results in some Vatican values being imposed on the whole Australian people. The nation's policies on abortion, _voluntary_ euthanasia, censorship, and financial aid to international agencies involved in copulation control, are examples of this unwarranted influence.

Traditional religious intolerance by this church was demonstrated through the following example. In the 1990s, when an Indian Hindu girl was to be married to an Irish Catholic in Australia, it took about a year to find a priest willing to agree to the girl's parents' wishes. They refused any conversion, or dedication of children, to the Catholic Church. They wanted a two-part marriage ceremony under the traditions of both religions, as is normally done in Asia. That is, the parents accepted their intended son-in-law's faith as equal to theirs. This is also a common attitude in most parts of Asia. My relatives are to be found in a number of religions, all accepting one another as equals on the road. Are Asians more tolerant than Europeans? Obviously we are.

The Catholics are a clear minority in Australia: nominally about 27% of the population. I have known many who define themselves as Catholic, but who do not support the Church. Whether they go to church regularly or infrequently or not at all, most of the Catholics I have met are no different from other Aussies. Whilst there is some casual evidence that some do favour those of the same faith and tribal background in any situation involving power or other benefits (a very human attribute), they display the normal range of prejudices, dislikes and likes. Fortunately, there is no more of that whingeing about the Masons and the 'prods'. Perhaps they realise that any historical discrimination would have been a two-way process. It is only that handful, the pro-life minority within a minority, which is worrying. Its more rabid members seem willing to kill in order to save 'lives'. Still, the fanatics do not define the faith. Yet, in any agglomeration of Christians, it is the Vatican's chosen definition of human life which causes division and unnecessary tension.

The exercise of centralised power used to define this priesthood. Is there another major religion in the world which seeks to control its followers in the way seen in Australia? Isn't religious (if not moral) authority enough? Because that great liberal, Mussolini, recognised the Vatican as a State, giving its officers diplomatic status, Australia gave similar recognition, but only in the mid 1960s. In my view, this was a foolish move. How are we to be an effective secular, multi-religious and multicultural nation if we give special treatment to one religious institution; and that of a minority?

Then there was the Pope in India at the end of the second millennium. He forgot his manners there when he talked about converting Indians to his church. No doubt he meant well, offering them the salvation that he thought that they apparently could not aspire to. But, will the Indian converts eat any better than the Catholic Filippinos living on rubbish tips and under bridges, or the Latin Americans with no hope of a better or more secure life in spite of centuries of Catholicism? Then there are all those Christians I have met who strongly believe that it is for God to decide who is to be the beneficiary of grace. In which case, does He discriminate between his followers according to the priesthood leading them? I guess even the Pope is not going to be exempt from the need to shake hands with that horde of Muslims, Hindus and other heathens and heretics when he ascends to the Heavenly Abode of the Cosmic Father!

However, it is good to know that this Church is now seeking to reform itself to suit the ethos of modern times. It is clear that my children's generation is more tolerant of other faiths, as well as of other cultures. Wonderfully, my grandchildren's generation does not seem to see any differences in religion, or skin colour, or those physical features which traditionally defined 'them' and 'us', and in a manner detrimental to the evolution of one people from diverse origins.

As for the other Christian sects in Australia, they seem to go about their own business without any serious effort to increase support; or to seek power. They are not as rich either. I find too that the smaller the church, the more dogmatic, cohesive and insular are the members. As one of them said, "You people believe, but we know". (I think he was quoting someone.) I have no problem with that, because they do not shove their views down my throat. Fortunately, none of the smaller churches seems to have any major influence on government policies. They seem to be quietly celebrating their commitment to the Creator, much as most religious sects in the world do. The equality of women and the equitable treatment of homosexuals are, however, still being fought over. The lust for power by mere males continues.

_Formal_ acceptance by Christians of non-Christian paths to the Creator is somewhat rare in Australia, in my experience. Yet, I was accepted into the Anglican Church without having to renounce any other faith. Regretfully, I did not then find the community that I sought. On the other hand, an Anglican bishop expressed concern relatively recently that many Westerners were becoming Buddhists. He claimed that they were giving away monotheism for atheism. I am not sure about this, but — when did monotheism produce better-behaved people than atheism? In this context, one has to note what Ashoka the great Indian emperor (and convert to Buddhism) stood for. His edicts are worth acting upon. For example, an extract from one of his edicts states: "All sects deserve reverence for one reason or another. By thus acting, a man exalts his own sect and at the same time does service to the sects of other people". I do suggest that the Pope and his officers, by adopting the above edict, can become _spiritual_ leaders, thus aiding all mankind in the search for identification with the Creator. Perhaps the Buddha Way should also now replace the papal highway as social policy in the Land of Oz.

To be fair, _practising_ Christians seem to be quite tolerant of other Christian sects, but presumably only when their religious leaders permit this. I am not sure, after half a century of exposure to Christians of a variety of sects, whether staunch followers of any Christian sect will socialise with adherents of other sects in the manner of true friends. I do hope so. Yet, none of my close friends over half a century were keen churchgoers. Does that say something about tolerance of difference by the 'faithful'?

Moving on: when Muhammed decided that the People of the Book, viz. Christians and Jews, needed to clean up their act, and return to God, he wrote the Koran (anyhow, that is my interpretation). As Christ built upon the Jewish faith, so Muhammed built upon the Christian faith, offering Allah the compassionate and merciful as the only God of all mankind. He was thus able to unite the Arabs as never before. Yet, I note sadly that, in Australia, there is an inexplicable fear, or dislike, of Muslims by many Christians. This was even before the 'war on terrorism'. This antipathy is expressed quite openly in private conversations. If this prejudice is a reflection of historical differences, how is it that comparable prejudice does not apply to the Jewish people? A successor faith is not necessarily a threat. One has only to note how a few clever Jewish people are able to use (presumed) Christian politicians in Australia!

The Muslim population in Australia is not large. The people came from many countries, some escaping from fundamentalist Islam, with all its repression and oppression. Their adaptation to a new world, which is not as tolerant of their faith as it might be, is strongly buttressed by their faith in Allah and in their spiritual leaders. And they seem to appreciate the political and social freedom available to them in Australia. Many nations in which Islam is dominant do not grant equal opportunity for economic and social betterment, freedom of thought, equality of women, and open democratic structures as we do. Yet, in its heyday, historical Islam was tolerant towards the Jews, Christians and others living under its domination; and it fostered learning.

Through my work experiences with Muslim communities in Melbourne, I realised how well both men and women are adapting to Australia's opportunities, with guidance from their own imams, and some help from government agencies. However, I did hear of a Muslim academic who expressed publicly his regret that Australian life is not regulated by Islamic law! No doubt, our Muslim people are as divided, doctrinally, as are other religions. Yet, as long as these sects are not allied to political structures, such divisions as exist may not impact upon the security, lifestyles, and political and social freedom of others in Australia. A culturally diverse nation, with a plurality of faiths, needs less intrusion into politics by institutional religion than exists at the beginning of the new millennium. However, a concealed clash of civilisations, euphemistically described as a war against terrorism, cannot make Muslims in Australia (and in other Western nations) feel quite secure.

Partly because I grew up in a country full of mosques and tolerant Malay and Indian Muslim people, I find myself instinctively attracted by the simplicity and purity of Muslim mosques, as I am by the splendour of many Christian churches. I also quite like the Muslim concept of a pleasurable Heaven. In between earthly transits, I may indeed have enjoyed that pleasurable break promised to good Muslims. After all, during my extended transit through time, I surely must have been a Muslim (and, serially, a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, and so on).

The basic teachings of the desert faiths seem, to a spiritually inclined Hindu from Asia, to be most acceptable. Indeed, my family was taught that all faiths are equal. Since most sensitive persons feel that there has to be a Creator for the wonder that is the Cosmos, as well as to explain that subtle yearning by the human soul for the ephemeral beyond the obvious materiality of the physical world, the assertion of a Creator by all three religions is unexceptionable. As the poet Keats said: "What the imagination seizes as beauty must be truth". If, to one people, the Creator had to be nameless and a bit of a chastising father-figure, that would have been reasonable in the times of those people. If the Creator is later offered as a loving father, that was reasonable, and probably necessary, then; especially, if they were essentially the same or related people. If the Creator is then presented as merciful and compassionate to a related people, that too can be reasonable. What is important, I believe, is that all these people offer a code of _conduct_ towards other human beings that is virtually _uniform,_ and unexceptionable _._

It seems to me to be significant that long before the time of Christ, the Buddha taught the same code of conduct too, but without emphasis, or reference, to a Creator, or to any special deals. His intention was also to break the then control over the people by their priests. His idea was that one should treat all humans (as well as all sentient life) as one would want to be treated. And there are those who hold that Jesus might have learnt from the Buddhists in Central Asia. Buddhist teachers are also known to have taken the Buddha's guidance far and wide. Whilst the Buddha has since been made godlike by some, and his teachings encompassed within a religious superstructure of varying dimensions and complexity, his basic teaching remains as valid as are the teachings of the desert religions, and as relevant.

The Buddha offered a view, not of the Cosmos, but of heaven on earth. In contemplating this view, one does need to ignore that smart-ass who said: "Heaven is the place where the donkey catches up with the carrot". There was, in any event, already a somewhat comprehensive and complex view of the Cosmos existing by the time the Buddha felt a need to stress more the universe of human relationships. There were, of course, doctrinal differences within this background _forest_ faith. There were (as with the Jewish people) re-examination, reviews and refinements, freely undertaken. There was monotheism and monism. This forest faith, in its many faces, was (and probably is) the most complex, in its ontological concepts. That is, in its presentation of the nature of reality. It was, and is, the most comprehensive in its explanatory focus. So I believe, after years of questioning and reading. And that is why I have returned to it — at least, to the core of the faith, but not to its innumerable gods and interminable rituals. This core faith also enables acceptance of other paths to God.

Yet, it needed a Buddha to stress the value of the individual human; and the need for compassion in the relationships between humans. Most commendably, more and more white Aussies are joining the Asian Aussies in following the Buddha. Indeed, Buddhism is the fastest growing faith in Australia, attracting the intelligent, creative, and caring, away from Judaism and the major Christian sects (so I read). Buddhist compassion and high moral standards allied to the Aussie Anglo-Celt's fair-go philosophy — how fantastic a combination that would be!

As with the early Africans, there was no place for an anthropomorphic God in the _core_ Hindu belief which the Buddha sought to improve. Gods in the form of humans, and with human attributes, were there for those who needed a tangible form of the Creator to whom they could offer prayers. Yet, it was accepted (then, as now) that there is unity in diversity. The many gods are merely aspects of the one God, the unknowable Creator. In the Hindu epic, the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna says: "Whatever God a man worships, it is I who answer the prayer". It is interesting to compare this with Christ's claim to his fellow Semites to offer the only path to God. Was Christ an incarnation of Lord Krishna? Where the Gospel invites us to love our neighbours as ourselves, the Hindu view seems to be that we _are_ our neighbours (so said a wise man)! And the Hindus in Australia go about their own way without prejudice to others.

The tragedy of both Hinduism and Buddhism (in their diverse forms) is that most adherents continue to follow the path of ritual (as perhaps with most other religions). Core philosophies are lost in the reality of the poor and the dispossessed grasping onto images of deities (in Hinduism) and embodiments of human attributes (in Buddhism) in their devotions. Images of the Buddha also proliferate, contrary to his teachings. It is interesting to see that the priesthood in some of the major religions has a need, from time to time, to rewrite the metaphysics of their faith. Is it a matter of ego gratification? Worse still, the caste system in India erodes not only the human spirit but undermines the hope of spiritual enlightenment of both oppressor and oppressed.

Neither faith has enabled Hindu and Buddhist rulers to uplift the bulk of their peoples in their life chances and life styles (after allowing for the depredation of their colonial masters). Indian Hindu politicians clearly do not offer equal opportunity for all, because of caste (and related class) prejudice. Sri Lankan Buddhist priests are accused of propagating prejudice against Hindus and others in the country. Other Buddhist rulers (eg in Thailand) are as ineffective as are the Muslim rulers of Asia and Africa, and Christian rulers in Latin America and Africa, in giving their people a little economic security and some material comfort. To be told that it is God's Will or that life is only maya (ie an illusion), offers no solace to the utterly impoverished and distraught. But, that is politics, riding on excessive human greed, with a claimed religiosity untarnished by any sensitivity for the plight of fellow humans, even of the same faith.

In effect, ritualistic or devotional religious practices continue to be the only hope for those who need help to better themselves in traditional societies. In these societies, socio-politico-economic policies are near-feudal, in spite of the trappings of democracy and universal suffrage. India, the world's largest formal democracy, is not aided in the least by its Hindu faith. The harsh and unacceptable truth is that only a command economy can speedily uplift an under-developed, neo-feudal people given to ritualistic religion. The current alternative is unsheathed, individualistic capitalism, with no under-pinning ethical, religious or communitarian base, as in Russia and China in the late 1990s, with the rouble and the yuan doubling as gods in their respective regions. However, opportunities to make money do not suit all mankind. Who then looks after the 'common people'?

Whilst political systems await necessary change in all the places controlled by ritualistic religion operating in cahoots with 'pretend' democracy (such as in the Philippines), those seeking their Creator might be better off following the core metaphysics of Hinduism. This offers freedom like no other formal religion does, except for the path of mysticism available within these faiths. There is even scope for bypassing the ungodliness of those priests who speak of the demands of their religious law rather than of cosmic law.

In its explanation of the nature of reality, and therefore of the Cosmos, the _core_ metaphysics of the Hindus offers not a personal, or even an intervening, God. The individual makes his own bed, wherever he is, and lies on it. The consequences of his actions (and inaction) go with him, wherever he is. This is freedom, but with responsibility. It can entail the growth of self-confidence within an oppressive socio-political environment. Indeed, I have observed 'lowly' Indians grow as they sought God through this practice. There is no place in this metaphysics for clever games with words, such as: What is the sound of one ball clanging? If Jesus was Jewish, how come he had a Mexican name? There is no central authority. There is no single basket of dogma. There are diverse perceptions and interpretations, reflecting the contribution by many thinkers. Like the sea fed by many rivers, the metaphysics is vast, containing many contributions. Yet, at the core, all reality is held to have a common origin. Through the study of the mind (the medium of knowing) and the states of consciousness, insight is sought on all realities. And meditation offers the path to enlightenment (communion with the Creator).

I recommend the Hindus' Upanishads as a useful guide to the Cosmos for those (whether in Australia or elsewhere) who seek their own way to the Void. I am, however, not inclined to the New Age paradigms. I believe these to have drawn upon the Hindu paradigm, with extra-strong mountain-climbing socks added, for pulling oneself up.

For those who might be interested — and to explain my attraction. The Upanishads proclaim (according to Easwaran) that "There is a Reality underlying life". "... this Reality is the essence of every created thing, and the same Reality is our real Self, so that each of us is one with the power that created and sustains the universe". That is, the Creator is both transcendent and immanent. Easwaran goes on to say that this Reality or oneness " ... can be realised directly, without the mediation of priests or rituals or any of the structures of organised religion, not after death but in this life, and that this is the purpose for which each of us has been born and the goal towards which evolution moves". Complex, yet simple. Is it not inspiring and therefore attractive to those who love freedom? I believe it is. And the yoga schools in Australia are indeed introducing this perspective to seekers of a better path to spiritual fulfilment. The goal of evolution may thus be said to be the realisation of One-ness. This is also the purpose of repeated human re-birth, where life between lives is a mere staging house.

The path to spiritual fulfilment is lit thus: since "... there is in each of us an inalienable Self that is divine", mankind is "... in a compassionate universe, where nothing is other than ourselves ...". Mankind is thus urged " ... to treat the universe with reverence". Not much scope here for that ethos driving the exploitative individualistic ultra-West, much of modern capitalists elsewhere, and the 'I want it all now' consumer greed of the societies in this materialistic constellation, is there?

Thus, man's innermost essence, the Self (or Atman), is not different from God, the ultimate Reality. This Reality (or Brahman) is " ... the irreducible ground of existence, the essence of everything — of the earth and sun and all creatures, of gods and human beings, of every power of life". This equivalence of the ground of one's being (the Self) and the essence of everything (Reality) is encapsulated in the phrase "Thou art That".

Thus, metaphysics and morals merge in that simple summary. Common origins bond. Yet, is this really any different from the teachings of the other major teachers of mankind? A close friend of mine, of European origin, and a staunch churchgoing Catholic, found the teaching of the Upanishads most agreeable!

It is only when the concept of a transcendent and immanent Creator is conjoined with the means of realisation of the Self, through meditation, and the related emphasis on states of consciousness, that one begins to understand why a Western philosopher like Schopenhauer was drawn to the Upanishads. In these, he saw, not Hinduism or India but "... a habit of looking beneath the surface of life to its underlying causes ...". He also drew attention "... to the courage to discover in ourselves a desperately needed higher image of the human being". And, one does not need any intermediaries. The human being may indeed have access to a 'hotline' to the ultimate energy source or ocean of consciousness.

The power and poetry of the Upanishads can be seen from these extracts (from Easwaran):

As the same fire assumes different shapes

When it consumes objects differing in shape,

So does the one Self take the shape

Of every creature in whom he is present.

(Katha 2 .2 .9)

When all desires that surge in the heart

Are renounced, the mortal become immortal.

When all the knots that strangle the heart

Are loosened, the mortal becomes immortal.

This sums up the teachings of the Scriptures.

(Katha 2 .3.14-15)

As a caterpillar, having come to the end of one blade of grass, draws itself together and reaches out for the next, so the Self, having come to the end of one life and shed all ignorance, gathers its faculties and reaches out from the old body to a new.

(Brihad 4 .4.3)

The world is the wheel of God, turning round

And round with all living creatures upon its rim.

The world is the river of God,

Flowing from him and flowing back to him.

On this ever-revolving wheel of being

The individual self goes round and round

Through life after life, believing itself

To be a separate creature, until

It sees its destiny with the Lord of Love

And attains immortality in the indivisible whole.

(Shveta 1 .4-6)

Meher Baba summarised it all beautifully and succinctly: "The finding of God is the coming to one's own self". An important corollary is provided by Kahlil Gibran when he said: "For what is prayer but the expansion of yourself into the living ether?" Of relevance too is the view of Erasmus, the great philosopher of the European Renaissance: "The sum of religion is peace, which can only be when definitions are as few as possible, and opinion is left free on many subjects".

### Chapter 5

Peering into the Void

"No matter how I probe and prod I cannot quite believe in God. But oh! I hope to God that he Unswervingly believes in me." — E.Y. Harburg

On this fragment of the Cosmos known as Earth, there are those who seem to know what creation and existence are all about. Then there are those who _claim_ to know, surrounded by that multitude who just _want_ to know. Amongst the Hindus, there is that belief (expressed in the Upanishads) that, through meditation, one can _realise_ Reality. Although this Reality cannot be described, one can come to know it by _identifying_ with it (ie by _realising_ it). It follows that, as stated by J. Krishnamurti, those who know cannot tell. Those who claim to tell apparently do not — cannot — know. This unitary awareness, being experienced, is uniquely personal. It is non-transmissible, beyond words, beyond thought (so we are told).

In a universe whose human history, as reliably documented, is somewhat short, what else can be claimed to be known? The ancient Indians and Persians claimed that an 'age' of the universe takes up 8640 _billion_ years. This is said to be a day and a night of Brahma (the universal Creator); ie one Kalpa. Brahma is believed to _recreate_ the _universe_ at the beginning of each Kalpa (with a bang?). Each Kalpa has 2000 cycles, each of 12000 divine years, where each divine year is 360 years of mankind. Each of the 2000 cycles is split into 4 sub-ages, progressively moving from dark to light (morally), and then back; ie in a cyclical path. How can mankind ever prove this claim wrong? Significantly, mankind is now in the Dark Age of the current cycle. The evil that man does to man, and his destruction of his fragile habitat, may yet be diminished (for a time).

Amongst those who claim to know are the scientists. Many assert certainty, based primarily on assessments of probability. They are inclined to deny that experience or observation which cannot yet be proven through their methodology. For example, the supporters of the Big Bang theory of cosmology would have us accept that there was nothing before the Big Bang, because _by definition_ there was (can be?) nothing there! Yet those of us who believe in God as the Creator are required (according to a famous proselytiser of scientific knowledge) to say what or who made God (what or who made the Big Bang?); why God exists (why the Big Bang?); how God created the universe; what determined God's nature; is God's nature unique; was God's creation inevitable; and so on _ad infinitum_. Why the more demanding criteria? There is also a certain illogic that seeps through these questions.

There are also those who can see _purpose_ in the increasing complexity of the structure of the known universe. But they deny pre-destination. They also deny any external cause such as a Creator. We are indeed asked to believe that something can come from nothing. Through random events, this then can evolve into an increasingly complex structure. This development thereby displays an in-built purpose! (Whoa!) The next step will no doubt be a claim that mankind has some special significance, whilst it is busy destroying its habitat. Can a scientific theory which posits an _in-built purpose_ not be deemed teleological? What can be the explanatory and predictive value of a teleological theory?

One might ask this school of cosmologists: How many universes do we know to be there? Is the Big Bang the only way to start or re-kindle a universe? If there is an infinite number of universes out there (or somewhere, or here), and there is surely no reason for insisting on identical universes (perhaps universes can evolve into more complex forms), how many other _kinds_ of life (not just _forms_ of life as we know it) might there be? How many of these could be sentient? Could sentience (or self perception) be variable too? What variety could there be in something called the mind (or is it soul?). Would the nature of consciousness vary with each kind of life or type of mind?

Whilst "We vivisect the nightingale to probe the secret of his note" (as said so brutally by someone), we might need to accept the limitations set by our five senses and their processor, the human mind. This mind may have organic limits. There may be insuperable constraints to the mathematical capacity required in the human mind to seek possible explanations; and to the range of conceivable experiments. There may be questions that we cannot even ask. There may be mathematical relationships out there we cannot access.

Then there are those leaders of religious institutions who somehow know that they are on the one and only path to the Creator; and that the rest of us are doomed. Nothing more needs to be said about such foolish and egoistic deviance from Reality.

Those who just want to know are the true seekers. Amongst these is a young Australian scientist who said: "Science showed me how clever God was ... it's the cleverness of science and nature, rather than any spiritual angle, that made me convinced there is a Creator". In my case, it was logic which brought me back to a belief in a Creator. It was an irrepressible urge for freedom allied to logic, not early conditioning, that led me to re-accept the core beliefs of Hinduism (but not its ritualistic and socio-cultural excrescential encrustations). It was the homing instinct of a communitarian loner which found the Upanishads so credible, and preferable over other paths to Reality. The other seekers amongst us include not only those who want to peer into the Cosmos, but also those who need a little certainty, and some meaning in our lives. The latter include those whose lives are horrendous (the Law of Karma thus manifest?) and those who seek some psychic peace in their otherwise comfortable material lives.

Whilst we are busy seeking, we know not whether the human being is as independent a life form as we believe it to be. We know not whether mankind has a special place on Earth; whether Earth is only a temporary haven or testing ground (or hell) for us in our collective transit through the universe; whether our universe is only one of the inflationary bubbles arising from some background foam (of consciousness?) which will go 'pop' in time; whether the whole caboodle is, as Bertrand Russell suggested, held up by turtles ("It's turtles all the way down"); or whether, in a claimed inter-active universe, the disappearance of mankind will result in the dissolution of our universe.

Does our universe have to be rational, the way we understand this concept? Sir Fred Hoyle thought that "... a super intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as chemistry and biology". Einstein said that harmony in natural laws "... reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection". What we know about the physical universe, whilst illuminating, inspiring, and intriguing, seems to be very, very limited. What we know about the human being, and its potential, is also very limited. At a speculative level, since bacteria were seemingly built into the evolution of humans (their residues being integral to the structure of human cells), and since they are known to use mankind to spread themselves over more and more of Earth, could they be developing mankind as the most viable vehicle for more distant destinations? Earlier forms of bacteria or their precursors may indeed have arrived on Earth from elsewhere, modern science having shown that viral and bacterial immigrants can indeed land functionally undamaged on Earth.

Further, parasites are known to use different life forms in their path of survival. For example, the fluke in sheep apparently goes through four different kinds of hosts in eight transformations. In the second last transformation, the fluke _controls_ the ant, which ignores its "normal colonial responsibilities". That is, it acts as a vehicle for the fluke. Which 'parasite' might be controlling us? In this context, scientist Lyall Watson asked, following one of his many experiences, whether the squid colony which he saw and which seemed to be observing him, could be acting as an observation post for some other life form. Are we being controlled, or just influenced, by some higher life form or intelligence? Is the spiritual search that some of us embark upon a reflection of such guidance? The relative capabilities of a cocker spaniel and a German Shepherd to learn might be illustrative of the varying responses of humans being guided along the spiritual path.

In the event, do our guides keep track of us all by using something like the hologram? In the hologram, which is an optical illusionary projection in space, every part apparently contains information about the whole of the object scrutinised. Does each point in space then contain information about the whole of space? Since we are said to live within a space-time framework, does each point in time contain information about all time — past, present and future? Is each human therefore only a fragment of a space-time hologram? Therefore, does everything that happens to each of us reflect that which affects us all? Conversely, does everything I do affect everyone else?

The ancient Hindus claimed that all things are in flux. The objective world is neither real nor unreal — only appearance (or illusion) in the great flux of life. We are only abstractions unfolded from an invisible, inaudible, intangible ground of a universal life-energy or an ocean of consciousness. So, is this unfolding random, or is there an underlying pattern? Is there a 'folded' order in that ground or ocean — and which is obviously hidden — but is available to human sensitivity? Is it accessible to a human seeker intuitively operating on a homing instinct? When an ancient Hebrew said that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", was he referring to this driving homing instinct?

As we proceed with our search, it may be relevant to remember, as a Turkish proverb has it, "The end of fishing is not angling, but catching". The final word for the seeker may come from a Scottish aphorism: "What baites one, banes another". And for those who need a personal God, Easwaran reminds us of that Sufi seeker who sobs to Allah: "How long have I been calling, and you do not answer?" In reply, he hears: "Who do you think has been making you call me?" Easwaran reminds us further about Augustine's complaint that we ferret out Earth's secrets "but never seriously wonder where we get the wit" for ferreting.

Thus, whether we are guided from without or within; whether we act autonomously out of a perceived need or (as in my case) out of curiosity, many of us go to great lengths in our efforts to peek into the future, or into what might already be. In this search, the template seems to be essentially Asian. For, the love and lure of mysticism has, in the West, been apparently overwhelmed by full bellies, or by authoritarian priesthoods. The latter have set themselves up as filters in the path of communication between humans and their Creator. The rationalism of a 'can do' science-based approach to solving problems can also dim the soft glow of a mystical approach to Reality. That many Westerners are now beginning to choose the psychic doors offered by the East is indicative of the inadequacy of rationality, or authority, or a digestive fullness.

What I find extraordinary is that the ordinary scientific mind cannot seemingly cope with the epiphenomena of psychic experiences. Inexplicable through the rigours of the scientific method, these are generally rejected as aberrant manifestations. Yet, in the theory of evolution, the evidence being insurmountable, an attempt was made to explain what clearly cannot be explained by the prevailing theoretical framework. The attempted explanation was 'punctuated evolution', but the processes underlying 'saltation' (ie the _sudden_ arrival of new effectively _functional_ forms) were not identified. Claiming that saltation is explained by punctuated evolution says nothing useful. Re-labelling an event or occurrence does not explain how or why it happened, does it? The logical explanation — that mass mutation must have resulted from major cosmic catastrophes or massive geological convulsions — is, however, not accepted, because of a lack of proof. When this proof becomes available, who will be around to write about it?

Encouragingly, in physical cosmology, there are theorists who write about: a super mind; or the collective conscious; or a cosmic mind; or a universal mind. Operating beyond the limits of space-time, an intelligent system of energy (or super-consciousness) can affect mankind's space-time in such a free manner as to allow almost anything to happen. So they say. One such scientist believes that consciousness might distort space and time by knocking 'black holes' in the bio-gravitational field that organises matter.

What entrancing perceptions! I marvel at the seeming congruence between these speculative philosophers of science and the ancient Hindus, or their predecessors. Of course, there will always be those who complain that "The Cosmos is an unreasonable state of affairs". In the dimension of Maya, the human body is only temporarily reconstituted stardust, subject to the terrors and pleasures of sentient life. This life is governed by the mind and consciousness. I therefore see no problem in the human soul being a finite fragment of an infinity of consciousness. In the event, it would be inevitable that this fragment would seek to rejoin the parent flow, after aeons of flashing into earthly existences, where each lifetime is akin to a flash from a firefly. Whilst on this path, the mind needs all the help it can get.

In my youth, palmistry was commonly used by the Hindus to read the future. I was told repeatedly (from about age seven) that I would be married twice. This is not the sort of information one wants to live with. After marriage, I feared for my wife's life, for divorce was not known to us. Yet, in time, I was divorced. My white wife could not cope any further with the anxiety of an on-going uncertainty about my employment prospects in Australia. I was 'too black' to be a psychologist (although I was qualified to be a student counsellor). I was also told that "the Australian worker may not be ready to accept an Asian executive". Those who spoke to me thus were men in senior positions, who were known to be nice people, and who spoke freely in the presence of witnesses.

Before that happened, a professor of anatomy intoned with great authority to his large class: "The lines on the palm of the human hand signify nothing more than the connection between the surface skin and the subcutaneous tissue". I was surprised that he did not add the words 'at our present knowledge'. Quaintly, a few years later, at the maternity hospital a few blocks away, a researcher demonstrated that certain lines on the base of a new-born baby's foot could signify certain diseases!

The logic of palmistry is that one's genetic and karmic inheritance is laid out in one's brain, and reflected on the palms of the hands. What Destiny has sign-posted in this manner is, however, not immutable. Life experiences, reflecting the interplay of nature and nurture, can modify perceptions, desires and behaviour. Traces of these are continually recorded in the brain, and progressively reflected in some changes in the lines on the palms. Such changes cannot, however, be substantial, as the historical influences of one's karma and genes surely have primacy. Yet, this suggests that we have a capacity to influence the future, to some extent, through our perceptions and behaviour. The issue would then be — what boundary limits might apply to the free will thus available. My fellow citizens in Australia do not, however, seem to have taken to palmistry.

What they have taken to are planetary influences. I have met a few amateur self-taught astrologers, as well as professional ones assisted by computer software. A friend of mine had annual forecasts done by computer. On looking back after a few years, she professed to be satisfied by the accuracy of the forecasts. Out of curiosity, I too paid professional astrologers for readings. But they were of no substantive value as guidance for the future. Yet, my extended family has relied on astrological readings for some guidance in major events, and found them occasionally useful — provided that one looks only for climatic influences, not specific outcomes. That is, there were readings which were remarkably accurate about the nature and direction of the forces at play. Perhaps the future can be broadly forecast without being specifically pre-determined. The same friend also paid for an assessment of compatibility, as indicated by planetary alignments, with her intended partner. I recall such pre-nuptial assessments by my people — and they seemed to be remarkably useful. But, I do wonder if a personal or cultural commitment to one's spouse may not play a more significant part in the co-operative relationships that prevail. As it was, the compatibility assessment for my friend and her intended partner was favourable. But the relationship was not durable! Time showed that intellectual and moral incompatibility can over-ride the assessed astrological compatibility. How can that be?

Contrastingly, whilst Indian astrologers base their readings about planetary forces, their respective strengths, and probable outcomes, on the minute of birth; and popular Western astrologers rely somewhat substantially upon the sun signs, Chinese seers rely mainly upon the year of birth, defined by one of twelve animals, as the primary distinguishing factor. The latter two approaches link planetary impacts to the _personality_ of each individual, as determined by the time of birth.

Information about planetary influences seems to me to be like knowing that there is a heavy layer of cloud blocking out the sun. Will it pour? Or will it be just a drizzle? Perhaps, it will remain dry and depressing. How long will the cloud remain? And so on. Relying on the sun signs seems, however, to give people more faith in astrological forecasts. These signs are also used in defining other people. They know that a Virgo is a picky, withdrawn individual. They have yet to realise that, to the Chinese, he is a Rooster — and therefore likely to crow and do battle. But what about female Roosters? A Leo personality is not so much Lion as Monkey. The difference in attributes could not be greater. In my experience, the sun signs are pretty useless in defining anyone's personality or in predicting what might happen.

My friends and I found that for casual analysis of an individual's personality, the Chinese system is surprisingly useful. By starting with the year of birth (say, Tiger), modifying that with the primary characteristics of the animal representing the hour of birth (say, the Rabbit), further modifying that with the animal representing the month of birth (say, Horse), a remarkable coincidence between the observed nature of an individual and the analysis was perceived (a careful tiger which runs hither and tither?). A dragon (year) person, seeking challenges continuously, with the moon sign of a crowing rooster, sounds like a terrible combination. Add to that the primary characteristics of an ox (born between 1 am and 3 am) eg tenacity, or a tiger (3 am to 5 am), and what do you have? An even worse combination. Ask such a person for confirmation. I could not possibly disagree with you.

Through the Chinese system, relationships between individuals are therefore (in my experience) more predictably assessed. What a useful guide this system has turned out to be for me, in spite of it not saying much about planetary influences. The latter can, of course, be expected to work their way, as very general tendencies, through all humanity, and quite impartially (as established originally by the ancient Babylonians). Thus, at a casual social level, sun signs were being used very commonly by all manner of Aussies I knew to define a newcomer to a group, and to assess potential relationships. At a deeper level of intended relationship, the Chinese system (easily remembered) enables a better assessment of probable affinities.

One can imagine the implications! In an Australian school district, all the children who are now five start their schooling. All through the country, in every school, given that children start at age five and progress year by year together, all the children in first year will be prowling 'tigers' (for example). The next year, all the new Year 1 students will be cuddly baby 'rabbits'. The following year, all the children at age five will be freewheeling and fierce 'dragons'. Each class will thus represent a pen, herd, or a flock (or whatever) progressing educationally through time. If all children in the world start school at age five, imagine the global annual movement through school of each pen, herd or flock (or whatever) — and the implications for the teachers who deal with them.

Imagine again! The class which studies algebra will be, say, 'tigers' (well, mostly, allowing for the Chinese New Year's start in late January/early February). They will attack the subject fiercely, will they not? The next year, the new algebra class will (presumably) nibble at the subject in a rabbit-like manner. The following year, the new group will no doubt breathe fire on all the premises of algebra in a dragon-like way. How will the poor teacher cope? As well, the group which studies philosophy in the first year at university could be, say, mostly 'horses', bounding hither and thither. What a life for the poor tutor, perhaps a 'boar' (pig) trying to enjoy his patch of mud. Would this be his karmic lesson? Would the poor soul have chosen it with his (soul) eyes open, as the New Agers claim?

There is, I believe, adequate evidence that planetary influences at birth do affect mankind, but not perhaps in the detailed way some might claim. Research in Europe shows some interesting links, eg the choice of careers. Thus, military men were found to be clustered under a particular sun sign. Significantly, a famous astrologer (Marc Edmund Jones) claims that "Man is not what he is because he was born when he was, but he was born when he was because he was potentially what he is". How does that happen? What are the causal factors? What triggers them?

The most popular of the seers in Australia are the clairvoyants. The involvement of Ravi, an Indian Australian, in four discrete, yet inter-linked, gazing into the Cosmic Void is illuminating. He had been mentioned (not by name, but by relevant characteristics) in four separate readings, for four individuals, by four different seers, at four different times, with all four readings forming a coherent pattern! The seers had been shown to be correct in each instance — not only with reference to Ravi's relationship with each seer's client, but also in respect of other events of import to each of the four clients.

For example, years back, Ravi's wife had been alerted by a seer to difficulties with her marriage. This was not surprising, since she had felt for years that she had married the wrong man, and was living in a city not of her choice. At about the same time, another seer had predicted a temporary and unstable relationship between his client and Ravi. He would, by then, be living alone, and attempting to develop himself spiritually — as consolation for the loss of his family. Yet another seer had advised his client that she would move residence, become more spiritual and, with that perspective, be attracted to an Asian man who was on the same path. As this man would not discard his responsibilities to his wife, the client's relationship with him would tail down to a platonic one. The fourth seer told his client that she would become more spiritual, after meeting a man who would encourage her in that direction. All four readings were also found to be accurate in a broader context of relevance to the clients.

The ability to make sense of the Void, particularly to peer into it in an eyeless way, is obviously a universal one; a gift to the few, whether black, white or brindle. For example, Rani (a Singaporean Indian) once consulted a Chinese seer, being careful to consult one with a proven track record. Rani was worried about the move into a new home that her husband wanted. But she did not tell the seer what her problem was. She only asked what the future might bring. The seer opened the book on her lap, after a short period of meditation. There was a picture of a house! Tracing it with her finger, she said that Rani and her family would move, and that the new home would become "a sort of temple". She was proven correct on both counts. The multi-tribal Hindu religious and cultural community being formed by the family's guru met weekly in the new home, for prayer and spiritual guidance. The future seemed to be laid out again.

Interestingly, Rani and her brother Rama sat down one day with the dates of birth of all their close relatives. Since Rama had left home early in life, he could not claim to know well the personalities of most of these relatives, covering three generations. From the dates given to him, Rama read out from his reference book on Chinese astrology (based on twelve animals) the broad characteristics of each of the persons in the clan. Brother and sister were confounded at the extent of the correspondence between the descriptions (brief as they were) and the known personalities. They were also astounded at the degree of astrological compatibility between the married couples, in spite of the camouflage of the culturally-conditioned commitment and co-operation between them.

In the event, one might conclude that what the future has in store is linked to the personalities involved. That is, that the future affects people according to the astrological configuration defining them at birth. And probable outcomes in the future can be broadly forecast by the planetary arrangements at each point of time of interest.

There are many clairvoyants practising in Australia. One of these draws squares on a piece of paper whilst apparently viewing the void of past and future. Her descriptions to me of past events, including human relationships, were absolutely and frighteningly accurate. When she refers to the future, however, she generally says that she could be wrong (unlike that American icon Jimmy Hoffa, who allegedly asserted: "I may have faults, but being wrong ain't one of them"). Things can change, the clairvoyant normally warns. However, she has been proven correct so far. The question which arises is: Is the future already all laid out? A Persian proverb does remind us that: "When its time has come, the prey goes to the hunter".

What has happened to free will? How could a human being live without some hope about changing, for the better, one's current existence? As individuals, one might be forced to accept the overwhelming dominance, if not control, of Destiny. Yet, how can this happen? Premised on the immortality of the soul, and the Law of Justice or Karma (ie of that causal connection between actions and their consequences or effects), we can expect to be reborn — and to the life we have earned. That is, we acquire the destiny we have shaped by our own past deeds and desires. Contrary to the New Agers' belief that we each choose, before birth, the life we are about to embark upon, we seem to merely paddle, as best we can, along the river of life, between the banks we have ourselves carved out in one or more previous lives. Indeed, as the Koran says, "That which God writes on thy forehead, thou wilt come to it". My father was also fond of reminding us, whilst encouraging us to strive to achieve a better material life, that "Man proposes, God disposes". So, we need to try, in hope; but accept what happens with equanimity.

My own experience confirms the power of Destiny. At 18, just after the sudden death of my father, a yogi arrived at our door. He had been meditating in the Himalayas. However, he was required to come down, and go forth among the people, from time to time. Hindus accept that it is more difficult to live a normal life in society than to meditate in isolation. He held my hand, looked at my face, and described my personality and my past accurately. When asked about my future, he said that I would sail south, early the next year, and be back in four years. He would not say any more than that I would spend a lot of time overseas. What he said made no sense. Students from Malaya went north, in the second half of the year, in order to obtain necessary qualifications. My studies would require a minimum of six years. So, we ignored his comments.

Yet, early the next year, I sailed south. I returned in four years, a profound failure. I had no qualifications, and no perceivable future. Unpredictably, I left a year later, never to return permanently. It was certainly never my wish to be a marginal man in a foreign culture. The year I returned first, I met a total stranger in my mother's home. He had told my mother some months earlier that he and I would meet at her home later that year. I did not know that. Soon after I arrived, this man arrived. His greeting to me? "I knew I would meet you here this month". Then the punch-line. Not only was I in the proverbial doghouse, but I would have a difficult time for most of my life. This apparent karmic inheritance came to pass. Had he read what had been written on my forehead? If so, how?

If I had been able to read what God had 'writ' on my forehead, could I have avoided what eventuated after my meeting with that yogi when I was eighteen? How was it that others could read it, and also from a vast distance? Was it also writ that I would try, and try again, ever so hard, often in a carefully planned manner, to achieve different outcomes from that which eventually occurred — and in so many areas of human endeavour? What was the good of prayer? My Catholic priest-correspondent, and believers in other faiths, were clearly wrong. Or were they?

An 'old soul' calling himself Silver Birch, channelled through an English medium, advised that each soul on Earth in human form represents one facet of a multi-faceted 'personality' elsewhere; and that each facet is sent to be 'polished' on Earth, through certain necessary experiences in living, before re-joining the total 'personality'. The theory of reincarnation, for which there seems to be some evidence, requires a finite entity (the human soul) which is capable of continuity (as that entity) over a number of lifetimes on Earth. Silver Birch's 'personality' (sited 'elsewhere') solves the problems arising from the necessary one-to-one relationship between a finite human body and its equally finite soul; with each soul traversing eons of time; and the number of souls necessary to occupy an expanding population of human bodies. These mother-lode, multi-soul 'personalities' elsewhere may also be growing in size, as well as multiplying (perhaps like coral reefs), thus providing the necessary extra souls! However, I occasionally wonder if the 'old souls' who communicate with privileged seekers on Earth do not offer advice carefully tailored to be acceptable to the seekers, and to be yet useful. That is, are we given only that 'information' that we are capable of comprehending?

Taking cognisance of my family's medical history, I had always expected a relatively early departure from Earth. As a Hindu, I have no fear of death. In fact, I was actually looking forward to a change from a life of continuing turbulence. A clairvoyant, in a social setting, however, advised me not to be in a hurry to go over to the 'Other Side'. But, I had not said anything to him about this matter. He went on to say that life over 'there' would not be that different from life on Earth (what a horrible thought); but there would be opportunities for learning. As a mediumistic clairvoyant, he had already demonstrated to me his skills in his field. So I was not surprised at him reading my mind whilst we were enjoying a pot of tea. I was certainly bitterly disappointed. What had I expected? I do not know if I had any specific expectations. 'Passing over' would be a challenge, a new experience to anticipate.

At a time when I was reading up on psychic phenomena, I was advised to consult this mediumistic clairvoyant (MC). He had a proven track record, said my fellow seeker. I had no expectation as to what he would do. When I walked into his room, he said, "I have the spirit of your uncle with me". I was totally flabbergasted. Why? Because my tribal folk spend an inordinate amount of effort in despatching the souls of our loved ones — through extended two-part ceremonies. I had never heard of a departed soul returning to talk to us. Since I had three uncles whom I had respected and liked, I asked the MC to describe this spirit. I did assume that he could 'see' him. This he did. I identified the spirit as my mother's eldest brother by description: height, skin colour, clothing, and something he 'said' to the MC. When asked whether I accepted the spirit as my uncle, I said yes. Then I was told that 'they' had decided that he was the one I was most likely to accept. Well! I have been pondering the implications of that for more than a decade. Curiously, it appears that in many, many simpler societies, it is the maternal uncle who has a pivotal role in the transition of boys from youth to manhood. In my case, after my father, he was the man I respected most.

By looking at the spot where my uncle was standing, and by 'listening' to him, the MC conveyed my uncle's advice to me. Then, something strange happened. When I said something to the MC, he was initially silent; then he told me my uncle's response to what I had said. I must admit that I was not my normal inquisitive, chatty self that morning. I was simply over-awed by the three-way conversation. So, I did not ask all those questions which have been bugging me ever since. Yet, I accept that I had been privileged to receive valuable advice. What was intriguing was that my uncle referred accurately to events after his death. He also used the phraseology of his day and place. Some of this made no sense to the MC, but was totally clear to me.

There were a few questions I now realise I should have asked my uncle. What was his new home like? What was he doing? How had he changed? Had he lost interest in those he left behind? Who were 'they' who worked out my likely reaction to his appearance before me? Was there anyone in his milieu who look after us on Earth? Was there any way we could reach any of them? In this context, the MC told me that each night, he asked, through meditation, for help in dealing with some of his clients the next day. In one case, a recently dead medical specialist offered advice on how to help a client. And I had asked for a consultation simply out of curiosity.

He has also displayed his ability to sense the presence of spirits. In my case, he referred to the souls of twin girls — but he did not know they had been born prematurely and died, a very long time ago. These souls were also sensed by another psychic who referred to herself as a healer. She claimed that she was being guided by spirit 'master healers' from the 'Other Side'. I found her confusing. That she could sense spirits or medical problems was not surprising. That she then claimed to see a past life of mine was both astonishing and not credible. How could she 'see' any of my past lives when they surely were personal to me, and should be accessible only to me? My reading on past life memories (ie about previous lives on Earth), and on life between Earthly lives (a life on the 'Other Side' between incarnations), did not suggest access by a healer, clairvoyant, psychotherapist or psychiatrist to what was stored in my soul.

A further incoherence arose from my own efforts to peer into any past life of mine. Through what might have been auto-hypnosis, I had had one experience which put to rest one of my fears. I had also repeatedly sighted (in this state) terrain from geographical areas which have been the focus of my thoughts from childhood. I had assumed that this pre-occupation was yet another reflection of past life experiences, as were certain other very strong affinities and attractions (eg classical Western music). The first of the past life scenes I was presented by this healer was slap bang in the same terrain. Was she simply reading something in me? How could she read a history which might have been embedded in my soul? Or, was she being assisted by her spirit guides, as she claimed? If so, then they were reading my record. Is that possible? What was the point of her advice following her 'sighting'? To reduce or remove certain physical pain to which I had not referred — ever — to anyone. I was grateful, confused, and yet excited. There was a pattern emerging from the totality of my experiences; with a number of mediums and healers involved.

The past is likely to be more easily read than the future. And an accurate view of life experiences in the past can be most beneficial in the way one places one's foot into the future.

Parallelling my learning arising from my curiosity was a report that a large block of ice fell from the sky in front of a scientist studying the formation of ice in the atmosphere. It was not raining or hailing anywhere in the district at that time. Do things happen when they need to happen, in order to penetrate some barrier in man's knowledge? Does this say something about the laws of chance? Or about coincidence? Or synchronicity?

I learnt a lesson recently, and it was traumatic. I had been extremely sceptical, for some years, about the use of alleged past life memories to effect cures. Just as hypnosis can be effective in changing perceptions, leading to the resolution of behavioural or other psychological problems, some psychiatrists and New Age healers claim that making a client aware of a past life experience enables the resolution of a hitherto ineradicable psychological problem, or the removal of chronic pain, or the elimination of aberrant behaviour. Published reports about the successes of psychiatrists in this field abound. Anecdotal success stories also abound. For example, a friend of mine, Sophie, suffered from chronic pain in her buttocks and hips. After being told by a healer that she had been hit by arrows in these regions in two separate lives (as a Christian foot soldier and as a Red Indian warrior, respectively), her pain disappeared. I too had to admit that the pain associated with my alleged past life trauma had disappeared after my consultation with the healer.

However, I remained sceptical. How is it that the trauma from so many lives back can now appear? Worse still, another friend, Mildred, had the end of a past life experience altered under the guidance of a healer. After entering a meditative state, Mildred had visualised herself in a field. The healer had then taken her, in this past life, to the edge of a cliff. Then Mildred said that she experienced that terrible urge to jump which she felt whenever she reached the roof of a high building or the edge of a cliff. Is this a form of psychic gravity? The healer encouraged her to jump, promising to protect her. When she jumped, she found herself floating and planing. Finally, reaching ground gently, she professed to have lost her fear of heights. The healer claimed that her past life experience of jumping off a cliff, presumably to her death, had now lost its power of trauma. I wondered whether, since the ending of the experience had been altered, it could be deemed not to have occurred. If it had not occurred, it could have no consequences. Or, would it be like an annulled marriage which had produced a number of children?

In any event, out of the blue, I had a fearful experience, for which there is no rational explanation. Whilst the human mind can play all manner of tricks, why would I subconsciously conjure up a vision so threatening that it took me months to get over it? My doctor denied that I was depressed. Perhaps there comes a time for some persons to learn about something that is relevant for them in much the same way that certain scholars, scientists and musicians have claimed that they were suddenly smitten with insight or understanding at a critical point in their lives. I have to accept that I might have had a flashback to a past life, since there is no evidence that I am losing my mind.

When a person believes that he has experienced a past life under hypnosis, and produces information which might be corroborated, what can the observer do? But, when a healer claims to see a client's past life, is it any different from a psychiatrist using a psychoanalytic or other frame of reference to induce the patient to find his way to reality, or normality, or whatever understanding enables the patient to continue his life with stability? If the client or patient accepts the frame of reference offered, changes will be set afoot in perceptions, understandings, and behaviour. Pain can also disappear. Sophie is happy with the thought that she was a warrior, at least in two lives, and died in honourable endeavours. Mildred was delighted to have overcome her fear. I am pleased that my pain has gone.

It could all be a matter of belief attached to psychic phenomena. For example, a 'thumbnail surgeon' in, say, the Philippines or Brazil defies all scientific and medical knowledge by 'opening' up a very much alive-and-aware person, using his thumbnail. He then puts his fingers into the opening, pulls out some visible matter, closes the opening, and thereby solves a health problem. The healer makes it clear that supernatural powers guide him. Is it also a matter of faith on the part of the patient? What of the faith of the observers who see the 'operation', whilst knowing that it cannot possibly happen? My doctor (a good friend) accompanied a team of other Australian doctors, with video cameras, to the Philippines. My friend was a fourth-generation Chinese Australian, trained in science before his medical training, and a great sceptic. Together, the doctors observed and filmed some 'thumbnail surgery'. When they returned home, they rejected with their minds what they knew they had seen, and which was confirmed by the videotape. I understood their problem.

In my boyhood, I had seen what could only be called levitation. A man lying on a mattress was seemingly suspended in the air. I knew, throughout my life, that it could not have happened. I also knew what I had seen. Since no one would have believed me, I had said nothing. As a university student who believed in the efficacy of the scientific method, I was again confounded by an experience — in 1950 in Melbourne. A friend and I saw the impossible. We saw a 'shooting star' cross the sky. It stopped twice and changed directions. Each change of direction was at an acute angle. It then took off into the distance! Since it was 1957 before the Russians sent up Sputnik, who would have believed me and my friend? We said nothing. Unverifiable experiences of the kind I had could be ignored. What were the poor doctors to do with their video evidence? Then, a migrant medico, another friend of mine, had a 'thumbnail operation' performed upon himself in the Philippines. He thus obtained a cure which had, he said, defeated his Australian colleagues for years. On a previous visit, he had observed a similar operation, for a different problem, on his wife. The European, unlike the Chinese Aussie and the latter's Anglo-Celt colleagues, had no trouble accepting what he had seen and experienced.

Was all this a matter of faith, or unshackling oneself from the limitations of the methodology of science? How could the scientific method cope with the production of a Swiss noodle by a Filippino healer during a 'thumbnail operation' on a resident of Switzerland; or the Brazilian healer who produced some large and fiery ants marching in a steady stream out of the body being 'operated' upon? They were observed to march across the floor and out the door. Both biological absurdities were reported by a reputable Western scientist. Into this arena of successful cures through yet inexplicable means, one can fit a modern Balinese healer who reportedly combined chants, herbs, bells, yoga asanas (postures), and manipulation of the strangest kind — apparently with success. This approach was probably inherited from the eastern and southern Indians who dominated south east Asia for up to 1400 years — mainly through the trading and settlement empires of Sri Vijaya and Madjapahit. The ancient (and not so ancient) Indians, apart from being great seafarers and colonisers, were also adept in science and medical treatments.

In recent years, the seas of search for spirituality have attracted all manner of fisher folk. In my experience, these seemed to be mostly women. Perhaps, the men are not true fishermen. They troll the seas purely in hope. Some of the spiritual fish the women seek seem somewhat exotic. A few of these ladies have claimed to be in touch with energies, forces, spirit guides, and 'past master' healers. Some see auras. Others 'know' of past-life relationships within their social group. Yet others claim to communicate with their 'higher selves'; and so on. Interestingly, none of these seemed to me to be feminists of any shade. I certainly did not find any I would normally describe as one-balled (the macho-bullies). There were none I met who saw sexual intercourse with a male as being exploited. They believed in co-operation in seeking self-improvement, and in charting something of their own future, without control by priests. They were also genuinely sincere, kind and outgoing, and remarkably tolerant. I had also noted that none of the seekers, both men and women, displayed any colour prejudice. I wondered whether these adherents of the apparently exotic might be ahead in understanding of the rest of mankind.

What is significant is that, many human beings, no matter where and how they were formed culturally, are joining together in Australia in this search. An illuminative example of this was the strange but encouraging congruence of cosmic views held by me (a metaphysical Hindu) and a close Christian friend. The latter was a fourth-generation white Anglo-Celt Australian, an active churchgoer, with the status of elder in his church. Both of us shared a belief in reincarnation, and in a universal Creator. As a Hindu, I say that the nature of the Creator cannot objectively be known, a view at the very foundation of the Hindu cosmology. My Christian friend was still thinking his way through this when the Creator called. He had not yet accepted that Balzac was seemingly echoing the Hindu's view when he referred to "the incomprehensibility of God".

Both of us believed that the Creator set in train certain basic forces and relationships, which had then led to an evolving universe and an evolving mankind. I therefore reject an interventionist God. My friend was reluctant to do so, saying that God might choose to intervene in the affairs of mankind or of individuals.

Both of us conceded that there could be many other universes, with their own rules and life-forms. There could be other dimensions, all possibly co-existing with mankind and its universe. Intriguingly, some leading scientist/cosmologists seem to concede this. More relevantly, both of us accepted a transcendent as well as an immanent Creator. Both of us realised that immanence in all things and beings created results in a bond between all things and beings so created; and that the consequent responsibilities represent the very basis of human ethics. That is, each and every human being is responsible for all other things and beings on Earth, and possibly elsewhere. Most civilized people would consider this perception a fantastic bond, and bind.

Thus, since the teachings by Moses, the Buddha, Christ, Muhammed, sundry known and unknown Hindus, and a host of other religious leaders are almost identical in regard to this mutual responsibility, the preference by many modern Australians for a shared or common spiritual life is commendable. The claimed doctrinal differences and relative superiority of some religious institutions tend, however, to interfere with this search for a common, humanistic spirituality.

The Cosmos does seem to beckon those of us who would hold hands freely across the oceans and vast schismatic chasms. As Hippocrates said 2500 years ago: "There is one common flow, one common breathing. All things are in sympathy".

### Chapter 6

"How can you govern a country which has 246 varieties of cheese?" — Charles de Gaulle

PART ONE — Foreigners Everywhere

The whitening of terra Australis

**A** ustralia went from monochromatic to multicoloured; from monolingual to multilingual; from mono-cultural to multicultural, all within two hundred years. This is quite an achievement for any nation, if one could only ignore the poor Aborigines, with their original diversity of tribes and tongues. This tri-level transformation of the country was, however, only the secondary change which the indigenes of the nation have had to contend with progressively. The most tragic impact upon the original black inhabitants and their abode was caused by their white conqueror, camouflaged as a seeker of discovery.

Predominantly illiterate, ill-socialised inmates of over-crowded British prisons and prison-hulks, accompanied by administrators and troops, and some of their families, (later supplemented by free settlers and some Irish political activists) iteratively intruded upon people who had inventively adjusted to an environment which most of the arrivals would have considered barren and hostile. Apart from their bitter religious divide, and some slight historical divergence in their genealogical origins, the arrivals shared (significantly) a similar culture.

Because the initial arrivals included a handful of people who spoke another language, or were of other ethnic or tribal origins, a few Aussies with a xenophobic perspective of (and affinity for) their very distant tribal/linguistic forebears tend to claim that Australia was multicultural in its initial intakes. One might debate this, on the basis that a field of wheat remains a field of wheat, notwithstanding the presence of a scattering of rapeseed or other grains within it. Since all the original invaders came out of Britain, they were presumably English-speaking and, with the odd exception, white.

When Britain's American colonies obtained their political independence, there went the avenue for the displacement of the British convict class. Instead of being sold as slaves to settlers in America, the subjects of the class cleansing in Britain were sent to open up Australia. The so-called criminal class clearly had to be eliminated from the eugenics of the British nation.

In time, many of the members of this 'convict' class became successful in trade, commerce and property in their new home. Their offspring became competitive in most economic endeavours. This occurred in spite of serious attempts by (initially) the free settlers and (later) their descendants to separate themselves on the basis of status on arrival. The only ones who were successful in achieving the social superiority and snobbery that they felt entitled to were those who benefited materially from the enforced displacement of the indigenes from their traditional homelands — the squatters. Some of this class now are said to talk as if they had begotten their own ancestors!

Whilst the squattocracy in Australia, resplendent in its newly-claimed superior garb, has seemingly managed to keep on its high horse, there has generally been little evidence of durable class barriers among the whites. The mutual antipathy of Catholic and Protestant, fuelled by a reciprocal fear of a takeover, and somewhat strengthened by some very remarkably ignorant men of the cloth, did not, however, deny access to educational qualifications, skills, jobs, and opportunities in trade, commerce, administration, government, the law, and so on. Barriers based on the initial antipathy, perhaps directed more to keeping one's own together (and to obtain advancement _en masse_ ), rather than any bitter (although serious) prejudice against the others, did not last long into the second half of the twentieth century. Good Catholic boys went to Protestant grammar schools, achieved that revered plum-in-mouth nasal accent, and sought their place in the upper echelons of society. In this effort, they were aided by good Catholic girls marrying back-sliding Protestant boys, and having them converted to the then lesser faith, or harnessing their children to that faith.

Whatever discrimination might have occurred in the period before the 1950s was not strongly evident to me. However, I was somewhat surprised at the vocal expressions of religious disdain in my early years in Australia. To my delight, such expressions have waned — and have continued to wane — over the years. I am not certain whether this religious divide was papered over by both sides by mutual, but not necessarily articulated, agreement (or understanding) that the Anglo-Celts of Australia needed to stand together against the rising tide of foreigners from various parts of Europe after the end of the Second World War. A significant strand of this xenophobia reflected what I suspect continues to be an unspoken global campaign throughout the white Christian world. And that is to ensure that the Muslim faith does not expand any further in Africa; that it is contained within Europe; that it needs to have its political wings trimmed in the Middle East and Asia; and that it does not achieve any power base in Australia. Successor faiths can be seen as a threat by those who combine faith with authority. Another xenophobic thrust might be to contain India, were it to display any ambition to become a world power, and potentially interfere with Australia's ambition to be the deputy sheriff in contiguous regions. Yet, China, the real threat to one and all, will be appeased.

Another thrust of significance in this global campaign is, in my perception, for the original Christian church to retain its leading position amongst all peoples. Much of this has already been achieved, mainly by prolific reproduction; also by rabid conversion throughout the world; and by all manner of political pressures on weak spots, eg Australia's immigration and refugee programs. The Church has increased its political clout by expanding its flock through these programs. However, in the very long term, all this will be irrelevant for mankind; for God and Gaia do not discriminate according to religious affiliations.

The re-colouring of the Land of Oz

Into this power play in a white Christian playground came a trickle of Asian immigrants, the majority of whom claimed to be Christian. Yet, the sudden acceptance of large numbers of Vietnamese refugees (with a substantial proportion of non-Christians), after nearly two centuries of disapprobation of the 'yellow hordes' of Asia, must have shocked many white Aussies. Whilst presented as an international obligation, this refugee program in the mid 1970s did 'piggy-back' upon the non-discriminatory global immigration policy formally and sensibly introduced in the early 1970s.

The Vietnam War, now seen as quite unnecessary (because the Vietnamese were fighting only for independence, not international communism), was the responsibility of the French and the Americans. The French did not want to lose that valuable real estate and soft colonial life in South East Asia. The Americans simply and simplistically have to insert their troops and their commercial enterprises into every nation that offers access to resources. Unlike their colonial predecessors, however, they claim to offer freedom and human rights to the natives, whilst seeking (as did their predecessors) to dominate their economies and diminish their cultures. Yet, Australia took in more Vietnamese refugees per head of host-nation population than did France or the USA. Ironically, Australia was said to be only the third choice of re-settlement. Did Australia rush in to take more than the others, as it rushed into an uninvited involvement in that terrible war, because of a desire to anticipate the wish of its political lord and master? Paying respect to those who are in a position to 'lord it' over the natives is one thing, but to be this subservient? Or, did Australia also seek experience in jungle warfare? I think it did. And it was then left with the unplanned consequences of this unwise involvement. But there was one benefit — initially naïve Aussie troops came home with a good understanding of the imperatives of international relations: that one does not ever believe what one is told; and that the smoke and mirror strategy of military incursions can rarely be penetrated. Perhaps it is like a male being seduced by a transvestite, as happened to a foolish acquaintance of mine (who had just had his marriage annulled).

Later, international obligations meant keeping UN bureaucrats happy, whilst these ran around in semantic circles about _non-refoulement_ (ie non-return to country of origin). The Vietnamese could not be sent back from countries of first asylum in Asia (viz. Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, in the main) or from Australia, whilst Cambodians in Thailand could. Refugees from Irian Jaya, Sri Lanka and sundry other places (eg Africa) could also be forcibly returned from many claimed places of refuge in the world. Even international refugee policy has sacred cows!

By the late 1980s and early 1990s, Australia was caught up in a tangle of policies. Its humanitarian entry policy excluded rural refugees because they might not settle easily into the nation. However, rural Cambodians had suddenly arrived on Australian shores by boat. Accepting these could lead to a requirement to accept rural refugees from Irian Jaya, Bougainville, Caledonia, and similar places. What was to be done with the Cambodian boat people? To complicate matters, a strand of policy which had evolved through the assessment of the claims of Vietnamese boat people, had to be dealt with. This was an undue emphasis on legal processes. These can successfully camouflage the truth about refugee claims, resulting in the acceptance of many economic refugees by Australia. The solution was a lovely side-step. The Cambodian boat people were flown home, and paid a living allowance for up to two years. Those who wanted to return to Australia would then be considered as immigrants, presumably on the basis of a 'prior contact' with Australia (an acceptable criterion for admission). Did many Cambodians take up this reluctantly offered opportunity? Did those who were subsequently accepted as Australian residents become economically viable and integrated into the nation?

In less than a decade, the Vietnamese in Australia exceeded the Jewish population by a very substantial margin, but do not have the political clout of the latter. Initially seen as good value, there are now some doubts. This was triggered initially by their highly visible involvement in the drug trade in the Sydney suburb of Cabramatta, cynically known as 'Vietnamatta'. This concentration of Vietnamese is akin to a wealthy suburb in the city of Auckland in New Zealand, colloquially transformed from Howick to 'Chowick'. That was because of the large intake of very wealthy Chinese, but with no suggestion of their involvement in the drug trade or in other criminal activity. As in Sydney, exceedingly rich Chinese have pushed up prices in the more desirable locales in Auckland. The locals were thereby pushed out, and are unhappy about their government's policies.

Many of these Chinese, both in Auckland and Sydney, then returned to their home playgrounds in large numbers, after re-building the houses they had purchased. The results are often architectural monstrosities. There is also great concern in Australia about the apparent inability of the police to counter the drug trade involvement by young East Asians, as well as their other criminal activities. The latter are often directed against their own ethnic communities. The glow of humanitarian charity has dimmed somewhat, no matter that the great bulk of the East Asian intake is viewed as worthy.

Thus, in the mid 1970s, the first of the modern 'yellow hordes' came to stay and, in the process, helped their Aussie hosts to counter that terrible prejudice against the 'chinks' and 'chows' that had lasted for nearly two centuries. Regretfully, some of the older generation still refer to 'chows'. The epithet 'slopes' now has great currency with those Aussies who cannot live with this large and sudden influx of hitherto unacceptable foreigners. The humanitarian entry of the Vietnamese was followed by a flood of Chinese, because of a bleeding-heart prime minister. His decision to allow a large number of 'students' to remain in Australia caused some concern. The subsequent growth of this community through family reunion has enabled it to become powerful politically. Apart from giving Australia an oriental flavour, have these two communities fully integrated into the nation?

Looking back – yellowed diggings

The history of the Chinese in Australia is not an altogether happy one. Prior to the British occupation of the continent, the Chinese and other near neighbours obviously had contact with the country and its occupants. The people from the islands which are now Indonesia had, over the centuries, traded with, taken wives from, and helped to increase the population of, the Aboriginal tribes to the west and north of Australia. Peoples from the territories north and east of the continent would have had similar contact with Australia. China's contact may, however, have been more akin to that of the Portuguese and the Dutch.

However, once news got out about the occupation of Australia (it is indeed amazing how news must have got around the world, not only then, but also thousands of years ago), the Chinese, like the Maltese, Malays, Mauritians and many others all over the globe (but mainly from Europe) sought a new life (even if a temporary one) in the new land. A handful of any nationality does not bother the mainstream, like a muddy tributary entering a major river of clean water, especially if there is no effort to assert rights. When the gold rush started in the mid nineteenth century, however, shiploads of Chinese arrived. This was a highly organised inflow. Coolies, as they were described by historians, were bonded to wealthy merchants in China, to go out to Australia and find gold on the latter's behalf. The bonds were oral. They were, however, binding upon the families of those shipped out, sometimes even upon a whole community. In the event, there was little scope for any of the coolies to abscond and become rich on their own.

The few wealthy Chinese traders in Australia were later to become involved in the contract inflow of coolies from China to work the diggings. Thus the British in Malaya, Fiji and other colonial territories were not the only ones enjoying the fruits of contract (imported) labour arrangements. The coolies arrived with few possessions (unlike some of the Vietnamese refugees of the 1970s and 1980s), and lived and worked in gangs at the diggings. Ship captains had to avoid entry barriers progressively set up by state governments. The coolies often had to _queue_ (to quote a historian attempting to be colourful) across the continent to get to the diggings. Working hard as a community; living frugally and in isolation; following their own cultural lifestyles; making little or no effort to mix with those of other ethnic origins (a common enough tradition with many immigrant communities, even today); extracting gold from diggings left behind by whites; all these could not have aided their acceptance; not that the Chinese cared about such a quaint concept.

The knowledge that the gold was being shipped back to wealthy merchants, whilst the Chinese diggers earned a pittance and were forced to live frugally, would not have led to acceptance anyway. To the free man, the Chinese would have had all the appearance of slave labour. Their strange food and some social customs would also not have endeared the Chinese gold diggers to the others. When the Chinese outnumbered (by many times), the whites (including a handful of non-Anglo-Celts) on the goldfields, the whites reacted with anger and venom. After all, Australia was discovered by whites, for use by whites. The blacks having been sidelined, why should the whites be now over-run by these foreign devils? The whites would not have known that, to the Chinese, the whites themselves were the foreign devils. The prejudice preached by the whites against the Chinese, whilst economic in origin, was cunningly couched as a complaint against unacceptable habits. This practice was continued, against other unwanted peoples, until recent decades, and aided and abetted by certain powerful periodicals and newspapers.

State governments eventually succeeded in restricting the inflow of Chinese diggers. In the meantime, white diggers killed or drove away any Chinese they could. There was apparently little risk of retaliation by the Chinese or retribution by their government. Eventually, most of the Chinese coolies were shipped back home. Would they have been better off on their return to their villages? The Chinese traders, however, remained in Australia. Few in number, they would become socially buried within urban confines. As such, their lives would have been secure, but they would have remained as marginal members of these societies. Thus, they would have had no political power as a community. The very wealthy of the remnant Chinese traders seem to have been accepted socially. For example, I know an Aussie whose paternal great-grandfather was a migrant Chinese. A successful trader, he had acquired a white wife, lived in a large home and become assimilated. The test of acceptance obviously was wealth and assimilation.

In reality, that was not enough. Generation after generation, if one had a Chinese appearance, one ran the risk of discrimination and name calling. Name calling was usually indulged in by the ignorant, and could be ignored. Common sense, peace of mind and, sometimes, safety also required that response. Discrimination tended to be on display mainly if one sought equality of status, and therefore equality of opportunity and reward. That situation seems to prevail in Australia, but with some notable exceptions. After all, it is too much to ask of a mere mortal that he share the seats of power with those his parents considered inferior or, worse still, a threat (usually of unspeakable dimensions). So, the 'old' Chinese in Australia, known as the ABC (ie Australian-born Chinese) assimilated culturally. Some inter-married with whites. The visible 'Chinese' were accepted (but with occasional reference to their origins), but did not succeed in sitting on sacred sites. The many ABC I came to know over the years confirmed all this. A successful genetic or social merging also meant limits to access to political power. This is something that the modern ethnic brokers, mainly from southern Europe and parts of East Asia, are obviously working on.

Sadly, in the early 1980s, I was made aware that there were a number of elderly Chinese living alone in Chinatown in Melbourne who were in need of care. These had remained in Australia, unlike many of their compatriots who had chosen, in traditional style, to return to their homeland to be buried there. I was able to guide the Chinese community to access a grant-in-aid worker under a new scheme directed to assisting needy sectors of ethnic communities with appropriate culture-sensitive settlement services.

The initially unwanted Europans

Before the influx of the refugee 'yellow hordes', people of the Jewish faith, escaping the Nazi threat pre-war, had entered Australia in significant numbers — enough to worry some Christians, especially those who had been taught about the Christ-killers. The pre-Second World War intakes stoically held together and held fast, and achieved both success and acceptance. Many did assimilate, thus laying the foundation for the acceptance and success of later arrivals. Indeed, there are many in the broader Australian community who are Jewish by origin and self-identity, but who do not adhere to Judaism. There are others who, having changed their names and faith, have disavowed their tribal origins.

The acceptance of the Jewish people is demonstrated by their rise to prominence in all spheres of Australian life. Their success testifies to full acceptance. The community in Australia is small in relation to the other non-Anglo-Celt populations. Hence the incorporation of the Jewish people into the power structures of Australia has to be the yardstick of ethnic equality in the nation, recognising too that such incorporation is a two-way measure. In a new multicultural nation, with its attendant risk of an undue stress on difference, the primacy of a reciprocal relationship between new and old communities has to be kept at the forefront of all interactions. The interface has to be fluid and accommodating, with mutual respect, tolerance and acceptance at all times.

The unacceptable cameleers

Such mutuality did not apply to the coloured people entering Australia early in its history. For example, the Afghans, with their camels, opened up the centre of Australia. They were presumably respected for this contribution initially. However, when they acquired white wives, or when they attempted to set up mosques, or when whites competed with them with their own transport facilities, they faced discrimination and disdain. When camel transport gave way to trucks and trains, the Afghans lost their place in the Australian economy. Some went home, others took to itinerant trading or labouring. The Afghan community has virtually vanished, with most of the remnants apparently assimilated through inter-marriage with Anglo-Celts, and possibly religious conversion.

The treatment by white Aussies of Afghans and Chinese was (reportedly) only slightly better than their treatment of Aborigines. Religious and cultural prejudice against both Chinese and Afghan, greed for gold and land, the colonial superiority of whites against other colours and their traditions and cultures, and the disdain of the technologically superior, make lovely bed mates. One might have expected that the descendants of the convicts might have had some residual, if not an instinctive, sympathy for other people facing discrimination. Perhaps the collective amnesia about the 'stain' of convict origins was responsible for this insensitivity. The ambition to distance oneself from one's forgettable progenitors can be evidenced in not only the emulation of the behaviour of those who had 'lorded it' over these progenitors, but also in the copying of their accents and their lifestyles. In modern Australia, some of the children in 'good' schools, in particular, the Protestant private schools, have fathers who are avowed communists (found usually in the trade unions); or politicians known for their right-wing views and Irish-Catholic origin; or academics known for their left-wing socialistic stances. Such emulation is not intended flattery, but a calculated campaign to enter the echelons of perceived power, if not, of acceptable and envied 'society'.

Those in India who are more British than their former British overlords are living testimony to this tradition. In Australia, there was a brown-skinned medical practitioner who gallivanted around the countryside wearing some sort of a hunting cap, in a sporty-looking Rolls Royce, and expressing himself in the most British of accents. Such is adaptation. Whereas Aussies of all-white origins, whether convict or free, Jewish or Christian, Catholic or Protestant, are now found at all levels of authority, it is doubtful if the British-accented Indian would yet rise to boardroom level in a commercial enterprise in today's Australia, unless he owned it! There are indeed a few Asian Aussies who do just that. Great wealth begets acceptance (of a kind). Allied to power it also begets respect (of a kind). However, I remember being told (not so long ago) how the owners of a dominant retail chain were seeking foreign buyers in order to avoid the enterprise falling into the hands of a Jewish Australian entrepreneur.

As a keen student of human behaviour, I realised early in life that power without adequate wealth is inadequate to purchase that respect which is craved by the poor but relatively powerful. I well remember a wealthy Pakistani carpet merchant who, in Singapore, was displaying some quality carpets to an Englishman in the days of the British Raj. When the Englishman asked to see something a little better in quality, the Pakistani said: "Excuse me, Sir, on the salary of a magistrate in this country, you cannot afford a more expensive carpet". The carpet merchant, having weighed his customer on the scales of wealth and power (in the days before credit purchase), did not pretend to offer any more respect than was warranted by the latter's temporarily high income. Similarly, the wealthy and successful Chinese trader would have been granted more respect in white Australia than the more economically useful but poorer camel train operating Afghan.

The hijacked Kanaks

Another major group of coloured people entering Australia in the nineteenth century were the Kanakas from the Pacific Islands. Mainly Melanesians, they were offered contracts to work on the sugar plantations. Typically, many Australian enterprises, almost up to present times, do not seem able to produce consumer goods (eg cars and clothing), or exportable commodities (eg sugar) without cheap exploitable foreign labour. For example, in the mid-nineteenth century, the Australian 'squattocracy' sought to bring in Indian coolies. They also opposed the cessation of the convict system. At other times, even Japanese labour was considered! Today, there are 'sweat shops' making garments for expensive labels, reportedly owned by East Asians exploiting their own people. What's new? A parallel can be found in the near-slave labour provided by dispossessed Aborigines on cattle stations. This enabled the pastoral industry to be established and to succeed. Cheap convict labour in the years of foundation enabled farms and other major enterprises to be established. Exploitable immigrant labour was, thus, a significant fodder fuelling Australian enterprises throughout the history of Australia. This is, however, not to diminish or denigrate the hard work, the skills applied, and the innovations introduced by individual Australian entrepreneurs, farmers and businessmen.

After the Second World War, European displaced persons and other assisted-passage migrants were forced to work for two years, as and where directed by the federal government. Professional and other educated displaced persons had to work with their hands. The sugar cane industry, in hot north Queensland, was one of the beneficiaries of this forced labour. A Ukranian friend of mine was one of these. Many of the southern European migrants, especially the Italians, stayed on to sustain the industry. Indeed, it was the large influx of Italian immigrants in the 1950s which developed the industry, with the aid of mechanisation a little later. In addition, during the Second World War, Italian prisoners of war were also sent to work on the cane fields.

All this is yet further evidence of the Anglo-Celt Australian male's aversion to menial hard work, even when all he has to offer is muscle. There are many able-bodied young men on the dole in low income areas, whilst foreign back-packers and so-called visitors from Asia are employed on seasonal work like fruit picking. There is almost a tinge of the old-time colonial in this type of Aussie. There is, however, without doubt, a very large number of worthy exceptions. The logic underpinning this aversion to hard work is, however, simple. Why bust your guts doing dirty or heavy work when someone you consider inferior is willing to do it, preferably at lower rates? Middle class Asians employing servants on very low wages and poor conditions are no different; except that they themselves possess valued skills.

The contract importation of Kanakas, reflective of this philosophy, soon deteriorated into 'blackbirding'. Unscrupulous ship owners and captains captured able-bodied Islanders as virtual slave labour (killing some, including women and children, in the process). Some Islander chiefs sold their captives from tribal or inter-island wars to the blackbirders. Just as the Chinese governments were ineffective in protecting their people on the killing fields of the gold mines, so the British and other governments were ineffective in protecting innocent Islanders from this pernicious process. Looking back in history, it is good to know that responsible government officials, particularly in Britain, were humanistically caring (even if, often, ineffective) in their policies.

A useful combination of a genuine respect for humanity, and a xenophobic wish to keep Australia white, classless, and British, finally led to most of the Kanakas being repatriated. Were they taken back to the islands they had been taken from? Were they compensated for what had been done to them? Perhaps their suffering was assuaged by the hands of Christ, forever held out to them by a grab-bag of soul-savers, always on the move, looking for lost heathen souls. Was this too another form of blackbirding, I wonder. I am only too aware of the way white Christian missionaries from western Europe had gathered some black Hindu souls in south Asia to their brown-skinned Saviour from western Asia.

Before the White Australia policy was introduced at the beginning of the twentieth century, a wide range of coloured immigrants had sought their fortune or a new life in the Australian states. There were black Americans; Singhalese, Indians, and other south Asians; Malays, Indonesians and other south east Asians; as well as the Afghan, Chinese and Melanesian intakes. Any who stayed would seem to have been assimilated. The visibly different ones would, however, have retained their ethnic tag as Chinese, Indian or Islander. More subtle distinctions were beyond the old Aussie, as I found. For example, an elderly lady, referring to me (in the mid 1990s) as Indian, asked me when my Afghan ancestors had arrived in Australia. Actually, she was not off the beam historically. Parts of modern Afghanistan were indeed included in sundry kingdoms based in the north of what is now known as India. However, many an 'Afghan' actually came from areas now within Pakistan, but possibly sharing a language with those from modern Afghanistan.

Modern national tags can indeed be confusing, as many Asian nations are relatively new structures. Simplified ethnic labels can thus be useful, even if not accurate. Thus, all brown chaps were once Indians; the 'yellow' ones used to be all chinks, now confusingly Jap, Viet, Korean or Chinese; the ones in between are also confusingly Indonesian, Filippino or just Asian. The media loves the term Asian, as it can cover a multitude of sins (generally crimes against society). Most of the migrant 'crims' reported in the media seem, in recent times, to be 'gangland' Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese or Korean. The use of the term Asian, however, helps to deflect negative perceptions away from specific communities. Contradictorily, the stories about Asian crime syndicates lend support to those who want less coloured immigration.

Incidentally, I am often told that I am not Asian. That term apparently applies only to the Vietnamese, Chinese and others of a similar colouration. Do I presume that I am therefore 'Indian'? Aren't Indians, Lebanese and other Middle Easterners Asian? To the tv-dependent Aussie, they are not! Some of my close friends also insist that I cannot refer to myself as an Asian, because I am an Australian. How then do I define my background or origins?

The Hunnish Wogs

Immigrants _en masse_ do, however, represent a threat to the stability of any community. For example, suddenly large intakes of people from Britain in the immediate postwar period did arouse some concern and much comment about 'whingeing Poms' or, more kindly yet derogatively, 'bloody Poms'. Such Poms can, however, now be found in prominent positions in Australia, accents unabated. No one seemed to pay any attention to the fact that some of the most powerful or influential people in Australia were immigrant Poms.

In contrast, a large group of German immigrants who came into the country _en masse_ about four generations ago did not seem to have been as acceptable. The religious intolerance which drove so many Germans to America also led many to Australia. A descendant of a famous German clan fled to Australia, bought land and did well. Since three generations or so seems to be the norm for durability at the pinnacle of whichever mountain or hillock is ascended by a particular clan or family, there is no residual cairn of material prosperity to represent the great name of their ancestor. Some of the genes of his clan are, however, carried in my grandchildren, together with some equally robust Irish ones.

Through intermarriage with Aussie Anglo-Saxons (in the main) and acceptance in the Anglican church, all that remains of this great German heritage, as frontispiece, is the ancestral name. Typically, as with (perhaps) most people with three or more generations of Aussies behind them, the bonds of marriage brought into the bloodstream of succeeding generations people of a diversity of national or ethnic origins. In one case, it included a proud Italian input and, through that inheritance, some Danish royal blood. A strand of this clan, by marriage to a descendant of an Irish immigrant, became Catholic. After the wedding of a clan member in the late 1990s, the Catholic priest was both highly visible and audible. His flock sat around him in a block, while the others sat separately. The bonds of blood (which brought them together on that occasion) were seemingly parted by the sword of religious difference. Was this a celebration of cultural diversity in a nation burbling about its official policy of multiculturalism? Or, was it a demonstration of religious bigotry, still dividing the nation in places? Why did those celebrating a joyful occasion not mix evenly or randomly with those sharing a common ancestor? But then, Australian cemeteries continue to have separate sectors for different Christian sects, do they not?

Individual German immigrants, like individual immigrants from elsewhere, assimilated or integrated successfully. A large group of Germans migrating together, followed by chain migration, and settling into a new area and developing it were, however, more noticeable. Following their traditional lifestyles in a rural setting, whilst it led to success in settlement materially, drew attention to cultural differences. Yet, until war broke out in Europe, there were no repercussions. Then prejudice raised its predictably ugly head.

This should not have been surprising. Australia had successfully nurtured, over a number of generations, inherited prejudices which should have had no place in a new home for all. The retention of prejudice of a tribal or religious kind, over centuries, elsewhere in the world may be understandable. The reason for such prejudice is usually that a group of people had done something nasty to another group. Being in close proximity, initially, resentment and prejudice will linger. A shared education, and work and play and, ultimately, increasing inter-marriage, can then help (through extended habituation, over a few generations) to break down the barriers and, eventually, to lead to collective amnesia. Why then was prejudice about Christ-killers, break-away Christians, Chinks and other heathens allowed to be transferred into Australia, and then kept alive?

Another display of tribal prejudice occurred in the recent mid 1980s and 1990s. A mere handful of Singhalese attempted to introduce into Australia their prejudices about the Tamils in Sri Lanka. One Singhalese actually asked Australian voters, through an advertisement in a newspaper, to note which major Australian political party favoured the so-called 'Tamil Tigers' fighting for autonomy for their homeland in north Sri Lanka. Knowledgeable Australians must have wondered what the Singhalese were doing in Australia. They, in their own multi-religious, multi-ethnic nation, were now 'top dogs', with their language and religion imposed as the official national language and religion. This denied pre-existing rights to the other ethnic communities there. In any event, Australia, their new chosen home, is not the place for airing their prejudices — no matter what issues are involved in the confrontation back in their homeland. Ironically, the majority of the Tamils and the Singhalese in Australia are, in all probability, Christian!

In a similar manner, in the midst of the carnage and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, many Serbian Aussies went 'home' to take up arms. Others of that tribe took to the streets in political protest in Australia. Public demonstrations, directed at fellow-Australians, in the name of (and against) the politically-opposed ethnic communities 'back home', do not enhance their chances of living in harmony in the multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation that is their new home. There is a very fine line separating one's wish for justice (as one sees it) for one's ancestral or tribal folk elsewhere, and the need to share a view forward into the future with the multi-tribal mix of fellow members of the new nation. Any tribal or religious prejudices existing amongst the diverse kinfolk elsewhere towards their near-neighbours should not have a place in this burgeoning nation of many peoples.

On the contrary, one does not hear or read about the Turks in Australia displaying any prejudice against the Greeks in the country, especially over Cyprus or some other aspect of history; or vice versa. There are no signs of Muslims protesting, campaigning or displaying prejudice against Hindus; or vice versa. Immigrants in Australia from most countries with a diversity of tribes or religions do not display prejudice against others from the same country. Some examples of such countries are Malaysia, Singapore, Lebanon, India, Indonesia, and China.

When Britain went to war, a predominantly British people in Australia also went to war. Aussies fought and died in wars which did not affect them, and should not have involved them — that is, if they saw their country as other than an extension of Britain. When the enemy was Germany, some Aussies went to 'war' against fellow Australians inside the country. German communities, in spite of their extended settlement in Australia, were still seen as foreign enclaves. Some Aussies were obviously bent on 'retaliation'. Others might have been opportunists looking for fire sales. Yet others might have been merely trouble makers. German Aussies, who did not belong anywhere else, and had nowhere to go, were harassed and hounded simply because of their distant origins.

When a fourth generation Aussie youth (with that German name and that Italian/Danish infusion) was flying as a Pathfinder in the British air force (an occupation which virtually guaranteed a short life), and helping to damage the war effort by Nazi Germany, his brother and father were making their contribution to the war effort in essential services in Australia. Yet, his mother and sister were removed from their home to be locked up, in the early days of the Second World War. Some official had noted the name, and thought that he saw the potential for a spy ring or some such pro-German activities. What a profound combination of patriotism, official zeal and stupidity! As in the USA, citizens with Japanese, Italian, or German-sounding names were uniformly viewed as a potential fifth column during World War Two, and locked up, some reportedly ill-treated. Both nations were multi-ethnic, multi-everything, except that the Anglo-Celts who ran the roost were functionally rooted to their tribal prejudices.

The young 'German' Aussie died over Germany. Back in Australia, the German community survived. Some members had, however, thought it wise to change their names in the meanwhile. By the time Australia was considered to be truly multicultural, another wave of Germans had been absorbed into the nation. These were the post-Second World War intake. They became respected as skilled workers, who worked with diligence, and settled successfully. My friends included a third generation descendant of the early German influx into the state of South Australia. He was indistinguishable from other Aussies, except by his surname. He eventually rose to a very senior position as a public official, rising from telegraphic linesman. Others of my friends of German stock were postwar arrivals, whose accents easily gave them away. Like most European arrivals from the immediate postwar period, they achieved security and became part of the nation. This was in spite of their accents, and the petty prejudices they had to stomach. Most seem to have married fellow-Germans.

Immigrant Germans, Austrians, Yugoslavs with German sounding names and Prussians could count on references by some Anglo-Celt Aussies to their alleged links with the Nazis — because those of a certain age would have been conscripted into the German army. One of my acquaintances was a Yugoslav (by country of nationality) who later claimed that he was in reality a German, by descent. After the debacle of Bosnia, he suddenly claimed to be Croatian. Not only did he admit that he had been in the German army but, at times, would say something like: "We could have beaten you if ...". He may well have enjoyed his role in the war effort. But he was an exception, in my experience. Yet, he too had integrated ('mit' German wife) into his new home.

By the time large-scale immigration from the Mediterranean occurred, the 'old' Aussies were quite relaxed about any potential disturbance to their psyche. They had already adapted to the postwar displaced Central Europeans. They were also used to having a few Greeks and Italians around. These people were also good churchgoing Christians, and their offspring had fought in Australia's wars. As long as they were not too visible and audible ...! Sadly, a close friend of mine, born in Australia of Italian immigrant parents, had such a rough time in the RAAF during the Second World War that he suffered a nervous breakdown.

Polyglot friendships

One of my first contacts with European migrants was with a most dapper young man, often wearing a cravat, and with an English-sounding accent. He turned out to be Dutch, fleeing from the former Netherlands East Indies (now Indonesia). He was a most urbane and arrogant looking fellow, quite unlike most of the other Europeans whom I met, then and later. He was also a very interesting man to talk to. Another European whose company I enjoyed greatly was an educated Pole who spoke without bitterness about his wartime experiences. An elderly Czech, well educated, was literally amazing — he could quote chunks of Latin, learnt before the age of sixteen. There was also a multilingual Resistance fighter, with some interesting stories to tell. An educated Icelander sold me books. A young Jewish lass spoke of her rape and other concentration camp trauma. A middle aged Latvian lady spoke of her hatred for the Russians. I had so many and varied experiences (mostly sad) told to me.

My migrant friends and acquaintances in those early postwar years were indeed very varied. I had also some casual contact with a wide range of arrivals (both immigrants and refugees) in more recent years. Then, there were those young Australians whose parents had been immigrants. They were the so-called 'second generation migrants'. Although they were Australian born, and were therefore second generation Aussies, chauvinistic 'old' Aussies liked to apply the tag 'migrants' to them too. The offspring of immigrants were, to me, not easily identifiable by the country of origin of their parents — because they were all white, looked alike to me, and spoke and (seemingly) thought alike. They were usually of student age, and educated. Many of the initial postwar immigrants I met were also educated. These were generally displaced persons — a term disguising a lot of suffering.

Amongst those of my age in the so-called second and subsequent generations was a large mountaineering 'Austrian', who threatened to beat me up late one night when I was sighted cuddling the fellow's bosomy girl friend. The next afternoon he took his little Asian mate out for a booze-up; he obviously had his priorities worked out clearly. There was a cheerfully noisy 'Greek' who loved to throw out the names of philosophers and composers of music in casual conversation. Interestingly, his father was a fruiterer, whereas the Austrian's father was a scientist. More evidence of equal opportunity in an open society? There were also wealthy Jewish lads whose interest was in fast cars and fast women (seemingly of similar origins). One of the latter had such a pointed presentation that Asians like me had great difficulty in looking her in the eye. After all, Asian women so equipped by nature tended to wear loose garments to deflect the male's eye. This girl certainly beat gravity!

A 'Yugoslav' friend used to walk around the university with a pipe clenched between his teeth, with his mind apparently focused elsewhere. He never took out the pipe, except to eat. But it was always upside down; that is, empty. His explanation was that he had been weaned too early. A 'Czech' couple, who used to make alcoholic liqueurs on their kitchen stove, exchanged recipes with me periodically — thus improving my diet no end. There was a 'French' lass who pursued me for a while, but without success. At that time, I lacked the confidence even to think about what might happen between two consenting young adults. Ah, the price of celibacy allied to ignorance. An 'Italian' used to correct my speech when necessary, identifying misplaced emphasis, in particular. An 'Englishman' had to protect me from time to time from the continuing stupid pranks of an 'Irishman' flaunting his (Anglo) grammar school accent. Another 'Czech' and I used to argue about European politics. Asian politics were too complicated. Another 'Greek' took me periodically to his favourite eating houses, where I was occasionally mistaken for a Greek. A 'Yugoslav' talked about the confusion and pathos of Balkan politics. Yet another 'Greek' talked about the shame of Muslim domination in the past. An 'Indian' talked about three generations of survival in a white man's land. A 'Chinese' talked about keeping one's mouth shut, if one were an European migrant, to avoid any reference to origins; whereas a fourth-generation Chinese Aussie would always be Chinese, because of appearance.

Then, there was an attractive 'Polish' lass who worried me. I feared that her interest in me was not purely platonic. That would not have mattered in time, except that she seemed a little clucky already, and family oriented. All these friends were Australian-born, but of immigrant stock. Their ancestral traditions were rarely, if ever, visible. But there were no professional ethnics around then.

Experiences of this kind reminded me of my early boyhood, when my friends were all local-born, but of diverse national and tribal origins. Where many of the parents merely co-existed, sharing a common market-place language, we offspring spoke comfortably in the shared official language. Origins were relevant only when in the company of parents and other kin; and with customary religious rituals and other tribal practices. Elsewhere, the way forward required a shared language and some shared practices. This is already so in Australia.

In my relationship with new arrivals in Australia in the early years, I was most touched by the displaced people. Many had lost families, careers, everything they had. Others had suffered more grievously. Their talents were wasted in Australia. Notable examples included a German Jewish academic scholar in anthropology, unrecognised in Australia because (as he told me) he had not studied the Australian Aborigine. He was also a sinologist and a lawyer. There was a Polish scholar who played the piano beautifully, but worked as a lowly clerk. A Hungarian lawyer also worked as a clerk, whereas a Greek Cypriot professional engineer became a handyman, doing odd jobs with skill.

The ones who affected me most were the youngish Jews who wore concentration camp tattoos. Although we ate together often, we never talked about their experiences. I never asked for any details. Yet, there hung in the air around us the after-image of their terrible experience. How could they have sounded so normal? I actually went out with a lovely lass for a while. What nice people they were. Some of them subsequently went to university. Others began small businesses. One of these commenced manufacturing clothing on his kitchen table, progressing to the garage; and later, beyond. They had to succeed.

Among the other early arrivals with whom I had some contact were not only Latvians and the odd Welshman and Icelander, but also Estonian, Finn, Lithuanian, Prussian, Ukranian, Hungarian, more Poles, Maltese, Sicilians (darker than I), other Italians, all manner of Greeks, a variety of Lebanese, Czechoslovakians, Egyptians, English, Scots, Irish, Dutch, and a few others I cannot remember clearly. The jobs they went into varied from manufacturing jobs in factories, terrazzo paving and concreting (mainly Italians and Sicilians), building construction, labouring work, farm work, tram conducting, employment on railway stations, and so on — all lowly jobs. The educated went into office jobs. There were plenty of jobs available. All worked hard, and most integrated themselves into the community. Some merely adapted themselves to Australia's institutional and social mores, relying on their own ethnic communities for social support.

Many immigrants soon learnt about 'sickies' and workers' compensation. Bad backs, soon translated by the press into Mediterranean backs, became almost fashionable. An immigration officer colleague of mine had pointed out to him, by the owner of the local taverna on one of the Greek islands, quite a number of former Australian residents working on their small farms. They had allegedly retired on workers' compensation paid by Australia. In later years, RSI (repetitive strain injury) took over as the source of retirement funding, so that even immigrant clerks and shop assistants claimed compensation (with the support of their doctors), with reasonable success. The immigrants were always adaptable. The old Aussies, in the security of postwar full employment, were excellent role models. I did wonder about the role of the medicos in this matter. On one occasion, a member of my work team in an office injured his right wrist whilst gardening. His doctor offered to describe the injury as caused by RSI! In contrast, my medico relative in Malaysia was paid by a company to look after the company's employees to get them back to work as soon as practicable.

My close Latvian friend spoke of the terrible treatment meted by the Germans, followed by worse treatment by the Russians. Therefore, when the Germans left, many Latvians went with them, to add to the fast-expanding diaspora of displaced persons. Eventually, there were more Latvians outside Latvia than within. A Pole talked about the hardship on the Snowy Mountains Scheme. There were lots of experiences like that to tap into.

The need to find white immigrants from the Middle East led to some talented people enriching Australia. Fleeing from Egypt (after Colonel Nasser came into power), where they had lived in exclusive areas and enjoyed a high lifestyle, a mixture of Mediterranean people arrived — with education, business skills, and social panache. They settled in well. I enjoyed the company of this polyglot community, going regularly to dances with them. There, the band was Czech, the glorious music international, the catering staff from all over Europe, and the patrons already cosmopolitan. Included were a few Anglo-Indians, Ceylon-Burghers, Anglo-Burmese, and Malayan Eurasians whose pigmentation was light enough for them all to filter through the mesh of the White Australia policy, with its infamous dictation test.
PART TWO – The Merging

Rejecting the new unwanted

The dictation test allowed officials to throw out anyone they (or their political masters) did not want, for any or no reason. This was achieved simply by finding a language which the applicant for immigration entry could not possibly know. This approach was clearly reflective of the utter ignorance and insensitivity of leading Australian politicians then. It was all so fatuous, contrasting with the currently impossible task of ridding the nation of queue-jumping economic refugee applicants, especially the 'boat people'. Quaint interpretations of international commitments; the assertion of unlimited rights for illegal entrants to avail themselves of unending publicly-funded legal services and appeals; an unbalanced emphasis on the use of lawyers to present the illegal immigrant's case for admission to Australia (when he has carefully destroyed the documentation which authorised him to enter his port of departure to Australia); a reliance on the adversarial court process, with the lawyers not required to assist the nation by objectively searching for the truth; a claimed right for asylum applicants to live freely in the community (presumably at the Australian taxpayers' expense) whilst their refugee status is being assessed; or, alternatively, to have community standards of comfort whilst in detention, with education, welfare and social worker support thrown in; all these highlight the distance administrative and legal processes have traversed since the days of the dictation test and its policy parameters. Those who landed on Australia's shores by boat, in the 1990s, travelling in a highly calculated manner, can claim (through their Aussie advocates) more entitlements to legal aid, access to the courts and other services than are available to us taxpaying citizens.

The boat people are, by objective definition, illegal entrants. Strangely, those who arrive by air (normally as individuals or families) can be 'turned around' speedily at the entry barrier. The boat people seem, however, to face lengthy processing, followed by a large proportion being allowed to stay! By what criteria are these exceptions permitted? Through the benefit of doubt. By what right do those who insist on imposing themselves as queuejumpers upon the nation (and who might, in all probability, not qualify even as viable immigrants) have so much access to taxpayer funds — especially in their effort to beat the system? What does this say about their very vocal supporters within Australia, some of whom got in through the same door? Or, about the jurists and politicians who allow such practices?

Surely there are speedier means of assessing refugee or asylum claims. If applicants cannot _prove_ their identities and their case for entry to Australia within six weeks of arrival, should they not be deported to the nearest country sharing their culture, or to the point of departure to Australia? Surely such an arrangement can be negotiated bilaterally? It would be cheaper for Australia to divert the scarce taxpayer funds now spent on 'due process' in Australia to those countries of departure or cultural equivalence. Impoverished under-developed countries would surely want to resettle energetic or imaginative people of the same faith, especially if they were accompanied by some funds. It is also interesting to note that those who argue for easier entry, and all the freedom and comfort that they claim Australia should provide to anyone who lands illegally on our shores, do not seem to offer to take in these arrivals and look after them at their own expense. That is, they seem to be very generous with other people's money.

Would it not be relevant for supporters of illegal (ie unauthorised) arrivals to also contribute to an open dialogue about the broader policy issues? A major issue is: what are the probable consequences of an open door entry policy for asylum applicants? The key issue, however, is: what constitutes persecution or political discrimination by those in authority in the applicant's homeland? Asylum, ie refugee or humanitarian entry under the UN Convention, should surely be based upon criteria drawn from the Convention. There does not seem to be any evidence of a willingness by advocates of easier asylum entry to have such an open dialogue. Instead, they focus on the quality of life of illegal arrivals whilst awaiting approval; for, according to these advocates, approval is the right of these illegal entrants. How so? Oh, we are a rich country; and these people seek a better life than available elsewhere, right?

The grant of refugee status to so many of these illegal entrants is, to me, suspect. Where are the boundaries between a terrorist, a social dissenter and a political activist? In a future Australian republic, would a monarchist political activist be able to claim refugee status in monarchist Britain, applying the same logic? It is almost as if Australia is saying to the world at large that it is filling up its empty spaces every way it can; most commendably by alleviating 'human rights abuses' elsewhere. For, there are many in powerful positions in Australia who defend their illogical view that Australia can carry a population of 100 to 200 million people. They claim that the country will be criticised by over-populated neighbouring countries for not filling its empty spaces. That the potential immigrant from these countries will need to bring in billions of dollars, and the necessary technology in his backpack to provide the water that these empty spaces have lacked for thousands of years, is not mentioned. Reliance on God's Will has been adequately demonstrated universally to be a deficient policy.

I have dealt officially with refugees from a variety of source countries. I have also worked with a number of the postwar displaced Europeans, and a few Vietnamese and other refugees. I have had some social contact with those who had fled Czechoslovakia and Hungary when the USSR threw its mighty weight about. In later years, my contacts (both official and private) covered the East European humanitarian entrants, especially the professionally qualified Poles. The tradesmen generally remained in Australia, grateful (as a couple subsequently said to me) for their acceptance. Some of the professional people went back, however, as they were not prepared to put up with the denial of their qualifications in the way the immediate postwar displaced persons or many later refugees or family reunion immigrants did. Driving taxis in Australia, even in an atmosphere of freedom, is no substitute for socially respected professional work back home. Indeed, quite a few Asian immigrant professional persons, after receiving residence status in Australia, went back. They, like quite a number of returning European immigrants, wanted to enjoy the social ambience of the lands they had left. Some of those given entry into Australia as refugees or humanitarian entrants also chose to return to the countries they claimed to have fled in fear.

Refuge and opportunism

The voluntary return of so many refugees and humanitarian entrants raises an important question. Did they flee their homes because of official persecution or discrimination, ie by the State? All that they had to establish was that they feared persecution, to be eligible for refugee status; or discrimination, to be eligible for humanitarian entry. And they all went on welfare immediately — and indefinitely! In truth, a great proportion of the world's population is qualified to make such claims whilst ethnic cleansing, and political persecution and discrimination are commonplace, but Australia is highly selective. Muslim (mostly middle class) Kosovars had to return, once their homeland was secure. Most of the initial Catholic East Timorese intake could, however, stay — even if they had been accepted from Portugal, their country of nationality. Seeking (political) asylum, whilst in Australia on a visitor's visa, has reportedly burgeoned into a growth industry. The compradors include both soul-savers (who deny the validity of national borders) and money-makers.

How does one assess a claim for humanitarian entry into Australia? In the case of the Baha'is of Iran, Amnesty International, other comparable rights-watch groups, and diplomatic sources established that these people were, in the 1980s, being persecuted as a people by the Iranian authorities. On the evidence available, no other people, tribe, or religious group faced persecution, _en masse_ at that time in the Middle East and Egypt. This was contrary to representations to politicians in Australia that persecution was the fate of all Jews in Syria, and all Christians in the whole of the Middle East (including all the Copts in Egypt). The denial of entry to Syria for Jewish brides was neither persecution nor discrimination, as defined in UN protocols. What about conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims within Iran or Iraq or elsewhere? What about the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq? And the Armenians in Lebanon? There does not seem to be any concern in Australia about these. When a global humanitarian program (based on individual cases) was introduced in the early 1980s — a policy I re-wrote to make it operational — it was with the Middle East in mind. The Baha'is were expected to take advantage of this gateway. Instead, a swarm of Afghans arrived, out of Pakistan.

Assessments of eligibility under refugee or humanitarian policies are difficult, as I found when I was Director of Refugee & Humanitarian Policy. It is often subject to political intervention, even when it is clear that an application has no merit. For example, an applicant in a Middle East country claimed to have set fire to his university, and therefore had to flee. Was he a human rights activist or arsonist? His sponsor in Australia was an earlier humanitarian entrant, whose permanent residence in Australia had been authorised only by a little flexible interpretation of the rules. This was because, having studied in Australia, he (with his supporters) had made a great fuss politically. Similar political noise in the second case led to another 'humanitarian' entrant being accepted. Then, the second entrant sponsored a relative living in a third country, also under humanitarian entry policy (an additional benefit of such entry is the free transport to Australia). Embassies, academics, and Amnesty International all confirmed that there was nothing to prevent the applicant staying on in the third country as a free person. No, the sponsor was adamant that the relative was at risk wherever he was, and therefore had to be taken in by Australia. "I want it", he said, then abused public servants and politicians alike — and won his case! Under what criteria? One might ask whether the nation has to be seen to be accepting a large quota of refugees, disregarding any financial and social consequences to the nation — or any logic of providing succour.

The Indo-Chinese refugee program brought into Australia many who would have been selected mainly to satisfy Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand, the countries of first asylum; and also to satisfy the USA, with its convoluted and ever-changing policies. The East European humanitarian program became virtually an immigration program, except for Yugoslavia which allowed emigration. The Latin American humanitarian program, whilst as helpful as the other two programs were to those genuinely in need of succour, had its political aspects too. These programs abused the humanistic charity of the Aussie population. Did an East European nation once empty a mental asylum to help fill Australia's humanitarian entry program? Did another empty a jail? Did a Latin American country also empty a jail or two? Did the Vietnamese government send in spies? Did a few known killers (as defined by an immigrant priest) come in from Lebanon as visitors, and stay under humanitarian policy? These suspicions, openly expressed by migrants themselves, cast great doubt on Australia's policies.

When the smaller ethno-specific programs of that period were playing their dual role of assisting those who claimed to be in need, whilst kow-towing to those who must be obeyed, a senior public servant said to his Asian underling: "We are bringing in two-headed, one-legged so-called refugees out of the refugee camps in Asia. Why are you reluctant to approve a sick old man from Russia whose tribal connections in this country will provide necessary support?" The latter was in relation to the Soviet Jew humanitarian program. Soon, numbers (meeting program targets) dominated the process of approving entry to Australia under the refugee and humanitarian (R&H) programs. I wonder if those Aussies who are expected to feel good through these policies, and the beneficiaries of such programs, are merely pawns in a strategy whose objectives are known to only a few politicians and their guides. Or, is it just a game, with everyone involved eating better than before (except the taxpayer)?

At the end of the 1990s, R&H entry brought in about 12,000 people each year, averaging about 15 per cent of total arrivals into Australia. The proportion is now less, immigration levels having risen (to suit the shop keeper mentality of the supporters of a conservative government). There is little publicity about numbers, source countries, and how they qualified. So often, such entry seems a gateway for political perceptions (to coin a phrase) and a let-out for administrative tangles. Such tangles are occasioned predominantly by an overly legislative approach which might successfully smudge the facts of an entry claim.

And what an interesting collection of refugee claims: "I set fire to a college"; "They won't allow me to have more than two children"; "We do not have human rights"; "Life was difficult", etc. The truth? "I want in; I want in, now!" It is a compliment to the nation. In contrast, many competent and competitive Asians (like most of my relatives), with skills acceptable or wanted in Australia, find no attraction to life in this country. So, what kind of people is Australia attracting? Many of my Aussie friends believe that it is also the free welfare and free hospital and medical services that are influential for many, especially if the whole family can be progressively pulled into the country.

A humanitarian approach to body collection is fine, provided that family reunion entry of relatives does not bring more welfare recipients. As many of these welfare recipients may not seek work, the authorities are free to claim that unemployment is not increased proportionately through immigration (including refugee arrivals). However, unemployment figures refer only to those who seek work and cannot find it. Work of only one hour per week is defined quaintly and cunningly as employment. If one does not enter the labour force, or drops out of it, and welfare has to step in, then one joins that growing band of those who rely on welfare, estimated at about a third of all households in the population. The roll of the unemployed is further reduced by placing more and more of the long term unemployables on the disability pension list. Fudge the statistics, and to hell with the taxpayer burden or the policy consequences. Since the highest income earners in the nation, and major companies, are allowed by successive governments to pay a great deal less tax than justice might require, it is easy to see how only one sector of the workforce (the pay-as-you-earn middle income employee) carries so many dependants. How much more baggage before the camel's back collapses?

I consider that my adopted country is quite weird. Outstanding as the nation is for its fair-go philosophy, reflected in equality of opportunity at all levels (well, almost), it yet allows inequities in tax burdens, and in income and asset acquisition, to prevail. Are the middle class, ie the middle income earners, so well off that they accept being milked by government in such an unfair manner? Or, have they been effectively disenfranchised by a non-representative, political party-based preference-allocated electoral system? Wage earners do complain all the time, but who is listening? Where is the path to justice? Or to remedial action? Perhaps, an increasing flow of independents into parliament might bring about that justice. But that requires a more intelligent electorate than perceivable at present.

The migratory adventurers

In the early years of mass immigration, migrants tended to attract other migrants. They were interested in others who, too, had changed nations, and in their life as minorities in Australia. They exchanged experiences and perceptions, as well as recipes, freely. In time, I felt that I had had a wider exposure to the migration experience than did the average Anglo-Celt Aussie. Where the contact by the Anglo-Celt with migrants was through the former's work, there may well have been some reticence on the part of the migrant to speak freely to someone not seen as, or likely to be, attuned to their experiences, background and interests. Yet, over many decades, Anglo-Celts with little or no contact with immigrants shaped policy on what was deemed necessary or good for the latter. In this, they were initially influenced by some feedback from those kind-hearted Anglo-Celt souls who set out to help the immigrants to settle into a new nation. Later, there were official advisory groups, but with too many Anglos still playing a role. Eventually, the insertion into policy of immigrant experiences and needs, filtered through immigrant values and perceptions, was achieved by the employment of some migrant welfare workers and a few ethnic policy advisers; as well as some research contribution by migrants and their offspring.

Unfortunately, expectations were ultimately aroused in the breasts of many immigrants about what the people of Australia owed them. Ethnicity, and the funding by governments of ethnic settlement services, became fashionable. Later, multiculturalism (a multi-hued, multi-lingual, multi-headed, government-goods chariot) was placed on the tracks of government give-aways. Ethnicity required plural service structures, led by people with an ethnic background, as the Anglos suddenly became totally incapable of understanding the requirements of successful migrant settlement. Official agencies were also alleged to be deficient in the way they served immigrants.

Multiculturalism then required temples devoted to ethnic diversity, and to a new god named 'managing multiculturalism'. The trouble was that few could agree on what multiculturalism actually meant, and what was to be managed, by whom, and why. A temple, once constructed, then became a sacred cow — the structure itself became an object of veneration. Then, immigration policy became harnessed to that chariot of multiculturalism. Even those who could pronounce the word had some difficulty about the choice of direction to be taken whenever a fork on the road appeared. The main choice was between a net benefit to the nation and, on the other, the limited joys of individual family reunion (and probable financial responsibility by the state for one's relatives).

How did all this come about? Mainly by attrition. The insistent flow of the waters of ethnic ambition over the soft shell of vote-buying by the nation's tweedledum and tweedledee political parties progressively empowered would-be ethnic leaders and selected migrant groups. This outcome was facilitated by those cynical bureaucrats who could see the edifice of their own stronghold buttressed by all this liberal greasing of squeaky ethnic cartwheels. Looking back for explanations is like trying to untangle a handful of enmeshed wool of varying lengths and colours. Yet, the path through the thicket (mixing metaphors) is reasonably clear, with hindsight. In any event, there is a need to untangle some of the woolly policy, by re-examining the issues of immigration and the parameters of the desired Australian society.

A migrant is an adventurer, by definition. Immigration officials everywhere, with an intimate knowledge of the nature of the individuals who seek to cross national boundaries will confirm this perception. The ones who knowingly attempt to cross into someone's territory illegally are probably the best exponents of this attribute.

Throughout the history of mankind, individuals have taken off into the distant unknown. Some sought knowledge, such as Fa-Hien, the Chinese pilgrim searching for Buddhist sacred books in India about 1600 years ago. Others sought to spread knowledge. Thus, the Indian Emperor Ashoka's brother Mahendra was sent to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) about 2300 years ago to spread Buddhism. Others sought economic advantage, usually by trade, eg the South Indian colonies in Annam, Cambodia, Sumatra and Java, commencing about 1900 years ago, and the Chinese in South East Asia in recent centuries. Slavery, a guaranteed means of wealth, especially as organised as it was by the British and others in Africa, took all kinds of people into foreign terrain, albeit involuntarily. Marriage to foreigners overseas represented an effective way out of poverty, eg the thousands of Filippino wives in Australia. Servitude promising gain was yet another means of self-betterment, eg Germanic tribes in Roman armies. The most profitable of foreign excursions was, of course, by conquest, eg Europeans in Central and South America, Africa and elsewhere. Yet others (like my Ceylonese grandfather), driven by necessity, sought to establish themselves elsewhere permanently.

Necessity, like opportunity, could affect whole communities (eg my ancestral community) and whole tribes. Devastating changes in climate, perhaps a shift of the poles of Earth, the onset of an ice age, and such major environmental impacts would have affected others. The need for more land to feed more mouths (eg recent Javanese migration into other Indonesian islands through government policy); or inter-tribal wars or political discrimination (eg modern Lebanon and Sri Lanka); a foreign conqueror driving out a settled people (eg the Chinese in Tibet) — these are all variations upon a theme.

Whether it is want or need, only a certain class of person takes to personal, ie individual, migration. They have that mentality that crosses barriers, whether geographical, linguistic or cultural, with equanimity. They can do this without wailing to God about their fate, and with a willingness to adapt. Adaptability is their distinguishing characteristic. For example, when Chinese goldminers were attacked, killed and scalped, the attackers apparently included not only British and Irish but also Americans, Germans and other Europeans. When British troops attacked peaceful demonstrators for independence in India, it was the Indian foot-soldier (possibly from another tribe) who was the most brutal. It was the Aboriginal policeman (probably from another tribe) who apparently displayed the greater brutality when whites hunted or punished the blacks. It was the Korean foot-soldier who displayed the greater brutality against the Malayans under Japanese rule in the early 1940s. This was adaptation of the worst kind. Other forms of adaptation by migrants in Australia are: whingeing to authority about newly-mined 'unmet' needs which 'they' (ie someone else) have to meet; and reliance on welfare for oneself and dependants (ie someone else again meeting one's needs). This is adaptation, by adoption of the role of mendicant, by someone who had the guts to cross the seas, leaving the familiar, in order to carve out, or work for, a better life. Of course, national policies, instigated by some cunning compradors, might also induce such mendicant attitudes.

This is not desirable adaptation. It devalues the currency of personal effort and self-sufficiency. It transmutes giving (desirably reciprocally) to taking. From the host nation's perspective of what is good for the nation in the long term, an immigrant has to benefit the nation — in sufficient measure to offset the cost to the nation of his incorporation into that nation. The newly-learnt awareness about the national costs associated with, or resulting from, official policies highlight the impact of immigration on a rapidly eroding environment. But there is no purpose in expecting those Aussies with a shopkeeper mentality (that more is best for business), and their handmaidens in politics, to understand that.

More relevant and desirable adaptations are also equally evident in Australia. Successive waves of new arrivals, most untutored, adapted to the major institutions of their new nation successfully. This, of course, is a universal phenomenon. Most people want to adapt, and do so. They learn the colloquialisms and idioms of speech in the host nation when they learn its language. They conform to, and willingly accept, existing mores about law, order, good conduct and good neighbourliness. They uphold, again with commitment, the values represented by the institutions of government, justice, education, and so on. They might even change their dress styles, and in time give away practices unacceptable in the host nation. These might include spitting; beating a wife (although the host nation might practise it too, in places, until the law steps in); clitoridectomy; having more than one wife at a time; satanic worship; being noisy in prayer; offering prayers to Allah (whilst facing Mecca) in the middle of a factory or office during working hours; and so on.

There is, of course, no purpose in the immigrant viewing with distaste, or complaining about, practices in the host nation which he does not condone. Such practices might include: foul language in a public place; being intoxicated in public; young girls being allowed out until late at night, unaccompanied by some trustworthy friend, relative or family member; women and girls 'advertising' their wares by inadequate or incomplete clothing, posture or movement, but without any intention of 'delivering' these wares; kissing in public or other forms of 'lewd' behaviour; easy divorce, and repudiation of responsibility for one's offspring; casual copulation and temporary co-habitation; reliance by the courts on legal technicalities favouring the accused, rather than emphasising justice and the interests of the community; a disproportionate emphasis on rights, to the detriment of responsibilities; and an unbalanced emphasis on the rights of the individual as against that of family, community and society.

Attempted retention of cultures

Where there is scope, immigrants will want to adhere to those of their cultural practices which are not illegal and which do not overtly conflict with those of the host nation, whether or not the host nation likes them. In the early days of immigration, total adherence to one's own values in a new society would not have been easy or even possible, because the host nation might publicly ridicule any non-conformist conduct. It is only when communities of foreigners of a viable size exist that the survival of some cultural practices is possible. For example, in the early periods, some immigrants felt it desirable to change their religious affiliations (eg Judaism to Anglican) because of prejudice. Others changed their names (eg from Diamontis to Diamond) because of the behaviour of the host peoples. A classic case was a man who looked as if he had been carved out of granite somewhere in the Balkans, who adopted the name Douglas on arrival in Australia. Those who had no compunction in intruding into the lives of others asked what his original name had been. He told them that it was McDougall. He had in fact changed his name twice, by deed poll. But no one dared asked what his name had been before McDougall. Perhaps they thought it not unreasonable for a McDougall to sound the way the man looked. Many East Asians (mainly those of Chinese origins) found it expedient to take on Christian first names, but without joining any church. These include glorious names like Serena or more common names like Charlie.

Anyway, many migrants had no choice in the way they were addressed by some Anglo-Celt Aussies. Poor Wilhelm became Willie, then Bill. He hated it, but could make no headway with his ignorant workmates. It was only when the policy on multiculturalism was introduced, with all the fanfare that Government could muster, that Wilhelm regained his name — by insisting, with confidence, on its use. So did baptised Petro (from the imposed Peter); Jerczy was recovered from the foisted George, Krishna from Chris, and so on. Multiculturalism policies did reverse that trend to loss of personal identity which one's name bestows. These policies did significantly dent the claimed right by many Aussies (some of whom I know well) to modify the names of immigrants. Incidentally, when an attempt was made by a white acquaintance to change my first name, I borrowed the argument used by this white fellow to support his case. Having agreed to the change of my name — because this white said that he was not used to foreign names — I asked if I could address him as Ching. I explained that I was more comfortable with that name. Strangely, this fellow then decided that no change of name was necessary, for either of us.

Throughout the history of Australia, individual non-Anglo-Celt immigrants could have adapted to Australia, simply by surface conformity. This means being seen to be part of the host community, especially through the use of the English language in public. The main cultural air-holes available to them would be related to religious observance, the preparation of food, and the use of tribal languages at home, all private matters. Successful adaptation might result in the immigrants receiving equal opportunity in education, training, skills acquisition and jobs (the latter not necessarily at a level commensurate with competence), equitable access to services, and social equality (subject to the impact of class issues and values). To achieve this full access to the unique Australian fair-go mechanism, the immigrants would also have to accept Aussie mores of social conduct, and the institutional structures surrounding and supporting him. They need not divest any of their _core_ cultural values and associated practices. They would simply go with the flow, so to speak. I argue that this is not assimilation, ie the total loss of one's culture, as claimed by the more strident ethnic spokesmen, but co-operative and reciprocal adaptation. If the immigrants could not so adapt, perhaps because of difficulty with either the English language or the primary Australian institutions, mores and practices, their offspring would certainly have to. The proof of the pudding is that successful adaptation does result in integration into the nation, with material progress or, at least, security and comfort.

With their own immigrant community to sustain them, however, the pressure to adapt is somewhat reduced. Depending on one's job, one could ignore the English language; not mix with any other community socially; and generally maintain one's core cultural traditions almost intact, whilst doing well in material terms; but still go with the flow on Aussie institutional mores. Reportedly, and by casual observation, certain immigrant communities have successfully maintained their core cultures in this manner — the Chinese, Indians, Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese and Lebanese being pertinent examples. Chain immigration, drawing people from small areas, eg some Greek islands, reinforces this pattern of culture-retention through relative insularity. However, social values are subject to generational change.

Having had substantial contacts with all kinds of immigrants over half a century, especially those from central Europe in the early postwar years, I claim that most immigrants did not give away their _core_ cultural values. As an academic born in Australia clearly stated recently, his immigrant parents maintained their central European lifestyle in Australia, even in pre-war days. Following up my hypothesis in the 1980s and 1990s, I could not find any immigrants who had been forced to give up their core cultural values, beliefs and derivative practices.

Ironically, the education systems then ensure that succeeding generations break away from isolating, tradition-bound communities. Indeed, the communities are reciprocally modified by their younger generations, to reflect more the Aussie ways of behaving, and of relating to other communities. Else, there would be inter-generation conflict. The younger generation would always win, eventually! Hence, adaptation to the new nation also means adapting to one's own children, who belong more to the future than to the past. This is not new. It is also a universal experience.

The question is, how is a migrant or ethnic or tribal community to retain its key cultural traditions in a fast-changing multicultural nation, where even the host peoples and their traditions (at least, the social traditions) are being changed through interplay with the immigrant communities, and through exposure to yet other foreign cultures through the media? Such inter-cultural and inter-generational changes are inevitable, in the way that teenagers sometimes change their vocabulary to exclude their elders and, at the same time, copy from a dominant teenage culture elsewhere. The more established immigrants, whilst respecting mama's admonitions about people and conduct not her own, more readily reach out or respond to other values and practices, especially in the areas of spirituality, food, companionship or sexuality.

Some youth get the best of both worlds, like the Aussie Catholic lad I knew well who went out only with Protestant girls. He argued that this delayed his probable marriage, and increased his chances of losing his virginity long before marriage. He then married a good Catholic girl, mainly because she got herself pregnant soon after they started to hold hands. Retention of cultural traditions, but adapting multiculturally — that is how this lad saw it. Another smart fellow, a Malaysian friend of mine, used European classical music to befriend and entertain the less popular, lonely, or older women; and offering curries as a means of seduction. When he went overseas to further his studies, six teary ladies were at his farewell party! More cross-cultural adaptation, was it not? In the Land of the Free, he carefully found himself a rather plain girl, but a member of the right level of society, converted to Catholicism, married her, and became a prominent citizen.

Thus, over the decades, migrant communities which tried to sustain their cultures by the retention of language, religion, customary rituals and practices, endogamous marriage, the celebration of festivals and dance in a traditional manner, and by upholding some social perceptions and values, yet found that they did have to change. But this is evolution, not enforced assimilation, as demonstrated by a Greek friend of mine. Whilst he claimed to be Greek, he spoke the language infrequently (only at home, with his mother). He conceded that he was not fluent. He could not read Greek, saw no Greek films or plays, and heard no Greek poetry. Yes, he ate Greek food, like I did. He and I were little different, except that he was surrounded by Greek religious and social rituals. But he did not support the dogma of his church, he said. So, what is Greek about him, once the cloak of ancestry is removed? What is the point of thinking of himself as a Greek in these circumstances, when his values and behaviour are no different from those non-Greeks who too have lost their links with their ancestral faith and language?

The German Lutheran communities of South Australia are also a testament to gradual adaptation. The Chinese communities of old are further evidence of ultimate adaptation. The Cornish, as a significant community, have almost disappeared; their pastie may be the only evidence of their earlier impact. Other old-established communities which adapted and faded into the mainstream are the Afghans and the smaller white communities, eg the Welsh, Scots (except on Robbie Burns and St. Andrews nights, and in Freemasonry), the Scandinavians, and the French. Even the postwar Dutch, Baltic peoples, Czechs and Flemish are fading, other than at multicultural festivals. Then the dances and foods of all people are brought out to refresh the collective memories, and to replenish each tribe's faith in the old traditions and rituals. The cynics refer to this as the 'spaghetti and polka' cultural tradition.

The celebration of the great Scottish poet and larrikin Robbie Burns' birthday can be a fun night, unless someone (like a Glaswegian friend of mine) questioned a gathering of Aussie Scots (not Scottish Aussies, according to them) on whether their expatriate collective memory of Burns and Scotland was more "like a Bonnie Doon set in Hawaii under the palms". The Glaswegian, I, and our wives then felt impelled to leave hurriedly, but with surface dignity, soon after the threatening outburst resulting from the question. After all, the Glaswegian was a notable public speaker, who was the guest speaker at that celebration. The problem was that he had quoted Burns in an uncensored manner, and in that incomprehensible tongue which even some of the Scots present could not fathom. But, in my friend's delivery, it sounded glorious.

The Scottish Aussies provide a very strong support base for Freemasonry in Australia. Consequently, on St. Andrews night, the haggis is piped in and dispatched in famous style. The consumption of a goodly amount of scotch provides the unadulterated support by all Aussies for acceptable foreign traditions; with one exception. At one of these nights, a fourth generation Aussie of Scots descent declined his portion of haggis, saying; "It's lowland food"! Apart from that single utterance of prejudice, presumably of class, there was nothing to distinguish him from other Aussies. If that fellow is a Scot, then I must be Chinese! As a matter of fact, the Anglo-Celt or 'old' Aussies probably have the greatest admixture of national or tribal origins outside the USA, and are occasionally described by some coloured ethnics (of identifiably unadulterated descent) as a race of mongrels. At a St. Andrews night at a major university in Australia at the end of the 1990s, the haggis was still being addressed in true fiery tradition, with some suspect gobbledegook (according to a witness) thrown in. The Scots heritage was also displayed through the kilted knobbly or fat knees of the men. The women always wore long skirts on such nights. This, I feel, is quite unfair. The ladies, like women tennis players, have better legs than their men.

When those of Baltic origins put on a celebration, the nostalgia is palpable. Yet, that ethnic pride of the Scots is never matched. It was thus even with the Germans, some of whom claim to be a distinct people, culturally. Yet, as Australian-born, they are essentially Aussies, but celebrating their cultural traditions as their parents remembered them. In truth, ethnic Balts, Germans, Scots, without their instruments and their tunes (excluding the kilts) are alike in their normal day-to-day behaviour and attitudes. Without benefit of their names, I could not tell most of them apart — by speech, behaviour, or expressed values. As I put it — in what way could they be expected to be different in presentation? Even I, without my skin colour, with my Hindu metaphysics not involved in 99.99 per cent of my human transactions, am not different. It is therefore interesting to see the Anglo-Celts, influenced by over-exaggerated official policies on multiculturalism, now parading the Morris dance as their cultural banner. That is the new 'polka' side of their tradition. Thankfully, they are not parading the 'spaghetti' side. To me, their cuisine continues to be dreadful, indicating that some cultural traditions are extremely (and tediously) durable, whilst palpably inferior. For example, a roast dinner with over-boiled and tasteless vegetables continues to be the acme of Aussie cuisine — at least as upheld by many of the 'oldies' I have known.

The Merging

As I argue, the behavioural and attitudinal manifestations of my metaphysics are no different from that of a practising member of any other major faith on Earth. Take away the costumes, dance and song — where is the manifest difference? Take away skin colour — where is the visible difference? Examine the protestations of all the mamas (or even the papas or the priests) about difference — in what way are the mamas, papas and priests different from other mamas, papas and priests? Different foods, different gods? Anything else that is different? Arrogance in ethnocentricity? Superiority of cultures? The attempted demonstrations would be worth watching! In the presence of the chauvinistic Indian, Chinese and Japanese, the European will always come out fourth!

An important issue is whether modern Aussie youth represent an amalgam of cultures reflecting that large cosmopolitan postwar intake, or whether some of them remain constituent parts of ethnic communities with their own cultural traditions. Aussie-born children are all brought up within a uniform set of institutional values and practices. Those with immigrant parents who have adapted to the Aussie ethos, whilst retaining their core cultural practices, may yet remain within the family's ethnic community surrounds. In the event, these youths may be viewed as members of communities which have integrated into Australian society. Whereas, the others can be seen as amalgamated. Integration of a variety of cultures would imply whole but separate cultures forming a mosaic, with the divergent cultures embedded into the single institutional framework which defines the nation-state. The rest of the people, distant from ancestral origins and associated mother tongues and cultural practices, would present a uniform, de-tribalised, amalgam. In this amorphous state, ancestry and other relevant historical linkages might yet be asserted or simply accepted; but any such affirmations would not represent that divisive feature which tends to fragment a potentially unified people.

Those who are insistent that cultural differences are so significant that they have to be treated as sacred, need to clarify the defining terms first, and then deal with the issues of invariant durability and primacy or cultural hegemony. In this context, it is worth noting that an educated, newly-arrived immigrant from a Mediterranean nation was described as having been "run out of town". He had challenged the attempts by his ethnic compatriots (who had lived in Australia for some time) to retain untarnished their imagined cultural heritage. He pointed out that the cultural practices and values back home had changed within the one postwar generation, as has happened almost everywhere in the world. He also disdainfully questioned whether the culture they had brought out with them had in fact represented that of the mother nation, or had only been some restricted regional version; and whether they had brought any 'high culture' with them. He was referring to books, ideas and philosophies, in particular. Overall, it is a fact that few immigrants can be expected to bring in _high_ culture from their homelands.

In terms of the retention of an immigrant culture in a new nation, is there a place for nationality-defined, as distinct from ethnicity or tribally defined, cultural traditions to be retained? Has this any relevance for the next generation in Australia, with its very own national tag, affiliations and obligations? Indeed, is there not an Australian culture in place already?

If one's ancestral language, especially the writings (including the philosophy and poetry) have formed one, the desired retention of, and reverence for, this language is admirable. One should be free to use it, and to deploy it in shaping one's descendants' cultural development. If one's religion is relevant in one's life, a comparable case for celebration of that inheritance continues to exist. It is therefore obvious that in Australia one should be free to retain those of one's cultural traditions which are not illegal for non-cultural reasons, or not contradictory to the values upholding the nation's principal institutions. How does one define 'not contradictory'? And which institutions are binding upon all the constituent communities of the nation? Such institutions are the time-bound socio-political structures which have evolved to represent and to uphold the nation's way of doing things. They include a language, and those processes and procedures relating to government, the maintenance of law and order, education, protection of the environment and of national borders, the enforcement of society-sustaining rules relating to acceptable conduct, and such like. Boundary limits of those institutions (ie tradition-bound practices) relating to social matters can, and do, vary with each nation, and with time. One would expect that a new evolving multicultural nation would now want to review and revise those practices which predominantly reflect a mono-cultural community's values. The cultural values of the new communities may need to be accommodated.

However, as a leading thinker in the area of ethnic affairs and multiculturalism has claimed, not all cultural traditions are equal. Who is to decide? And how? That is, what criteria are relevant? Bans on spitting, killing an animal in one's backyard for meat, clitoridectomy, and such like have a universally sound, health basis. What about circumcision? Not beating wives or inflicting physical violence against any living being also has a universally sound, life-respecting basis. What about chastising one's own children physically by, say, slapping? Or light physical punishment in school? Bans on killing anyone except in war; and bans on assisting suicide, as well as suicide, are also sound, and based on a universal respect for human life. What about allowing an incurably ill person in terrible pain to die, ie not preventing or delaying death for theological reasons?

Since everyone has a view on such matters as circumcision, physical punishment of children, right to life and right to death, most of which is culturally conditioned (mainly theologically defined), should one set of such values override the rest in a multicultural nation? The ban on killing any human applies to a new-born baby. There are no boundary-defining questions about exceptions. But what about that minority of Australians who define a zygote (ie when sperm fused with ovum) as a human _being_? That is, of course, their right, provided that right does not deny or diminish the right of other Australians to uphold contradictory values, viz. those who define a human being as commencing at birth. The right to define a zygote as a human being, however illogical that may appear to others, is reflective of an open society in which all cultures are equal. However, does a cultural minority which defines a zygote as a human being have a right to have the government, which represents a variety of cultures and values, ban abortions?

Perhaps, were responsibility to be allocated fairly, then those whose values of compassion and faith bring a deformed child into the world by choice, would be required by law to look after that child, and at their own expense. Those whose cultural values are opposed should not have to share responsibility and the financial consequences of the actions of others. It should be the same with smoking, since its harmful consequences are well known. A smoker should be required to pay for any medical treatment caused by that voluntary decision to smoke. If one wants to risk one's life (by, say, bungee jumping) then one should take up insurance against mishap or personally pay the costs of any injury.

Freedom and responsibility belong together. But, it will be a hard line to sell in Australia, because of traditional claims of cultural superiority by a religious minority; and because of the prevalence of a welfare mentality which involves others paying for one's damaging decisions. There is, therefore, no necessity for a single, codified, rule of cultural conduct where a diversity of cultural values co-exist within a nation. Laws and prescriptions should be at a minimum — a difficult concept for those brought up in an authoritarian system. Tolerance, too, reflects trust in the viability of one's own beliefs and values.

The necessary acceptance, respect and support for the core institutions of society by all the culturally diverse communities in Australia will, of course, not prevent these institutions from evolving through time. The key word is evolution. These core institutions should ideally not cover social culturally-conditioned practices, where tolerance in diversity would be the appropriate relationship. Laws necessary for peace and good order, maintenance of health and so on, should also reflect knowledge and facts — and not beliefs, preferences, and other reflectors of institutional religion (especially those of an authoritarian cast). With the exception of practices which are known to be detrimental to health and human values, all the cultures in the nation should have equal value. No culture should dominate. Hindus should not be required to venerate Mary. Christians should not be required to venerate the Buddha. If your babies are conceived in sin, and a zygote is a baby, so be it. You wear the consequences of your chosen assumptions. If your babies are humans at the seventh month of pregnancy or after birth, so be it. The fewer the proscribed activities, the less the need for uniform definitions. If your aged seek to be allowed to die without intervention by professional carers, so be it. If you want all the technology in the world to keep you alive at all cost, so be it — but bear the cost yourself!

Mutual acceptance

A free society is based on mutual tolerance and respect for those who do not or cannot agree on certain culturally variable values or practices. Perhaps, the government's policy of 'managing multiculturalism' might now be directed to the objective of a free and tolerant society. The new emphasis will be on accepting the cultural values and practices of others as viable as one's own, rather than attempting to impose one's culture on all others. It is against this background that one can peruse the confluence of ethnic and party-political ambitions which brought into being policies referred to as ethnic affairs and multiculturalism.

From time immemorial, individuals have been wandering into the territories of other people, either peacefully or aggressively. If allowed to stay, they initially co-existed, co-relating subsequently on the basis of need. Later, the relationship might reflect growing acceptance and respect. Yet later, through education, inter-marriage, mutual help, a shared faith, or habituation, they might act together. They might indeed defend their territory together and die together (if need be). Apart from extra-ordinary circumstances, and some extra-ordinarily mean people (including some religious leaders), residents begin to help one another. The history of Australia (and many of its neighbours) is a testament to this. Mateship in Australia was not something to be found only in the pubs, in men's associations, and in boys' clubs. It also included women, but within traditional roles. A fair-go approach was clearly evident at the end of the Second World War, except (perhaps) if the other fellow was coloured or, to a lesser extent, a European 'wog' — so we foreign students, with our own multicultural backgrounds, discovered. As wave after wave of migrants (initially all white) arrived, they were treated well, notwithstanding what some middle class academics might claim. They were of course subject to that oral put-down, which the newcomer learnt to either ignore or to reciprocate.

This fair-go attitude is still perceivable among the modern Anglo-Celt. It is all-embracing. Yet, some immigrants (in my observation) do not always adopt this attitude of mateship to fellow Aussies, when there are many of their own kind about. Their mateship tends to be tribal, but with some outstanding exceptions. Some of their offspring have not fully adopted this Anglo-Celt attitude of egalitarian mateship either. The explanation arises from that intra-tribal focus. Tribal assistance is important, especially for the new arrival whose command of the English language is either not good or negligible. Without relatives, one's community could help. In the event, there were organisations of volunteers in each major migrant community to help settle the new arrival.

Local-born members of migrant communities, being aware of the increasing involvement of governments in welfare, sought government financial subsidies for their migrant settlement assistance — a not unreasonable approach. So, the government stepped in, enabling an expanded settlement service. What was the service? Finding accommodation, jobs and money on arrival would be priorities. The role of the community workers, both voluntary and paid, was usually a referral service — to point the immigrant to the appropriate agency and, where necessary, even to assist in dealing with the agency. Where previously the immigrant asked around and found his way, the new arrival was shown the way. Interestingly, as I found, many of the earlier immigrants (mainly from central and north Europe) who had settled successfully, queried this new government involvement. The critics also felt that the independence-minded new arrival was becoming encouraged to become dependent on the state. But these critics were not listened to officially. Some of the beneficiary migrant communities, even in the early 1980s, included some Jewish, Dutch and German communities! There were few of these people entering the country as immigrants by then. One would have expected that an established community of two or more generations, with few new additions from overseas, could have been weaned from those government subsidies directed to on-arrival and initial settlement assistance.

In the meantime, English language classes proliferated. The staff subsequently achieved permanency in employment. Lots of money went into this worthwhile effort. But, nationally, no one knew, at the end of the 1980s, what all this wonderful effort had achieved. It was all process, not outcomes or effectiveness. Whilst standards for levels of competence in English had been drawn up by skilled academics (within an organisation called NAATI, with which I had some responsibility), there was no overall national picture available as to how many migrants had achieved the various levels of competence at the end of their courses throughout this period of great and worthwhile effort.

Furthermore, by the end of the 1970s, the major European migrant communities being subsidised for on-arrival services were the Italians, Greeks and Yugoslavs. These were established communities. Subsidies were also given to non-migrant organisations to provide on-arrival referral services for immigrant arrivals not serviced by their own communities, perhaps because of distance, sparsity of population, or some other good reason. The churches, especially the Catholic, were among these organisations. Some non-religious organisations came into being to look after the Indo-Chinese refugees, a most commendable effort. Later, they were replaced by organisations of the Vietnamese, Cambodians and so on. Contradictorily, the Mediterranean communities remained beneficiaries of subsidies long after their countrymen found Europe not worth leaving; their plaint was inadequate access to services. That is, agencies (both public and private) were not making known the services they had available, in the languages of all the migrant communities. Consequently, migrant organisations could continue to play a role in their communities, long after the period of initial settlement. The services then likely to be sought included sponsoring relatives for migration (these were generally reluctant to come), obtaining citizenship and passports, psychiatric services (rarely), other health services; generally, the whole range of community services.

The beneficiary organisations, in the main, objected to what was officially termed 'mainstreaming'. In this alternative approach, all service providers (public and private) would ensure equitable access to their services. The major ones would use ethnic radio and ethnic newspapers, employ bi- or multi-lingual staff, and generally reach out to the potential clients. Private practices, eg doctors and lawyers, would make their own arrangements for equitable access, so that migrants could communicate with them effectively. Mainstreaming avoids duplicate service structures. That is, it is more efficient, whilst avoiding ethnic posturing.

To further assist the immigrants, the government established a translation service. It was initially intended to translate any documentation relevant to their initial settlement. A telephone interpreter service was also introduced. Not unsurprisingly, Anglo-Celt private sector professionals and businesses dealing with migrants began to exploit what was meant for the disadvantaged new arrival. In time, there were grant schemes to fund research. So often, the beneficiaries were non-migrant individuals and agencies. The research was to identify 'unmet' needs! And needs seemed to balloon out, if one accepted the judgment of the service providers in the chain. Indeed, more than a decade after arrival, migrants were alleged to be further in need. Some of this need related to the ageing process. A lot of the claimed unmet needs, however, seemed to me to be more in the minds of caring welfare workers or ethnic community leaders than in reality.

Politically, there is little chance of removing a subsidy once established. Statements about a finite bucket of public funds and the need to prioritise the alleged needy are not well received. The political pressure came from community leaders, now termed ethnic leaders. Government recognition for funding automatically legitimised the existence of an ethnic community (where ethnicity is self-defining), its administrative and service structures and, most importantly, its leaders. These subsequently led to the formation of umbrella organisations, allegedly to co-ordinate the community organisations. Naturally, they were also funded by the taxpayer, ie governments. Then, there had to be conferences, studies, reports, workshops, feedback sessions _ad infinitum —_ all at a great financial cost to the taxpayer (but offset by a boost to some egos).

As a government official, I was most sceptical about the need for much of what went on, and its effectiveness in settling the new arrivals. My basic position was that, the bigger the local migrant community, the more able it is to assist the new arrival. My further position was that there was no special role for government once the new arrival was settled. All service providers, public and private, should offer equal access — that is their given or chosen role. Since neither need nor effective outcomes were demonstrated after more than two decades of taxpayer subsidised service, was there not a requirement for a brutal evaluation? Weak ministers cannot be expected to take such a responsible stance.

The myth of multiculturalism

In the interim, multicultural policy had crept in through the back door. As a policy, it was intended to have the Anglo-Celt back off a little, whilst the ethnics played with their traditions in security. It is difficult to know what it was they did with their cultures, under the banner of an expensive multicultural policy, which they had not been able to do previously. Australia is a free country, and I had seen no barriers to the expression of the more important components of cultural heritage, especially language and religion. The 'old' Anglo-Celts' wish, often articulated rudely, that all foreigners speak English in public, soon evaporated. There were too many 'wogs' about. Anyway, the Anglo-Celts began to enjoy all that wog food, and the sight of lovely wog women, many of whom they wooed and married.

The catch with multicultural policy was that, whilst it set out rights and obligations, many 'ethnics' saw (in the main) the obligations as applying to the Anglo-Celts, or to someone else. The requirement for every community to respect _every other community_ for its cultural values and practices did not seem initially to affect the ethnic communities so much. After all, it is not their traditions and practices which override (potentially) that of the others, or which represent any barriers. What was it that the Anglo-Celts were expected to do? To the extent that they held the reins of power everywhere, they were being asked to offer fair treatment to all. However, where the 'ethnics' owned businesses, are they also not expected to offer jobs, fair treatment, and equal opportunity to all Aussies, irrespective of origins?

The bottom line is tolerance and fair treatment by all, to all, irrespective of origins, language, religion. Inherited prejudices work against this requirement. For the first-generation contact, some education for all parties might prove beneficial. The means would be the media. The target would be the community groups, including the mainstream Anglo-Celt. Repeating the mantra 'Australia is multicultural' will not change perceptions and behaviour, ethnic cuisine excepted. Appropriate education, in schools, training institutions, and workplaces would bolster the thrust to equal opportunity through mutual respect. This respect is fully available to white immigrants. Can coloured immigrants and Aborigines be confident that this respect applies equally to them? The ultimate objective of this education would be to have a commitment to the nation and to its institutions; to respect all other peoples, tribes, cultures, languages and religions as culturally and politically equal; and to treat members of other tribes fairly, particularly in terms of equal opportunity in employment and career prospects. A targeted educational program would bring diverse peoples closer together, sooner.

The minimum role for government is to remove barriers to cohesion as a nation. Just by being themselves, without the injection of cultural prejudices by the guardians of each tribe, people (especially the young) do gravitate towards one another. After all, it is not the government's multicultural policy which has led to cross-cultural marriage and other close social, work and business contacts.

I found substantial evidence that humans instinctively gravitate towards one another in child care centres in migrant hostels. It is probably not that different in child care centres in suburbs with a diversity of ethnic origins. In a migrant hostel child care centre, where no tribal leaders (viz. the priests and politicians) had displayed any prejudices and politics, in the care of motherly women (few with professional qualifications) could be found young children under the age of five. Often, the younger ones would be sitting together, each occupied with its own self-chosen task. Yet, each was clearly conscious of what the neighbours were up to, and what toys were available to them. From time to time, there would be a transaction with a neighbour — sometimes peaceful, at other times, with fierce (possibly noisy) disagreement.

There would be eye contact and, in the absence of words, various sounds. In the main, there seemed to be an underlying understanding amongst the small group. How did they reach that understanding, when they had arrived in Australia very recently, from East Europe, East Asia and Latin America; and their parents could not yet communicate across the language barrier? As for the older group of children, they would talk to one another, each in his/her own language. They would co-operate with one another, giving or exchanging toys. They would display more understanding towards the others! I do believe that they were not aware of differences in skin colour, accents, or ethnic origin, the way adults do. But then, most of us should be able to remember when we began to be conditioned to perceive, and to act on, differences between fellow humans.

The future of a new Australia was being displayed by these children. They were a delight to behold, and to be with. Is there not some basic human instinct that enables the very young to apprehend similarities where adults might perceive differences? And why do adults allow themselves to remain separate and superior when cosmic intelligence ultimately tells them otherwise? Is it a matter of power over others? Or, a fear of those who look or sound different? Or, simply a residual conditioned attitude?

Regretfully, multicultural policy, sometimes referred to as managing multiculturalism (with all its scope for official manipulation) has been used for ethnic empowerment. Ironically, family reunion immigration, sought vehemently by the Mediterranean peoples, benefited English migrants most in the first two years of operation! Soon, any effort to modify immigration for population, environmental or eco-social policies was challenged by some migrant spokesmen. They argued, somewhat vociferously, that any significant modification to immigration policy would be contrary to multicultural policy! Any changes to the structures of ethnic affairs-related funding, any attempts to rationalise migrant service delivery, any effort to dispense with the multicultural edifices whose contribution to a cohesive nation is possibly questionable, was also alleged to be anti-multiculturalism! Ye Gods!

Multiculturalism is an unclear concept. At one level, it describes people from about 80 countries, speaking about 150 languages, living amicably together in Australia. At another level, it represents a plea for fair play — but who is actually modifying their behaviour at the exhortations of government? Do East Asian or Middle Eastern or Mediterranean businesses in Australia employ people from elsewhere? At another level, the term multiculturalism seeks a commitment from the new arrivals to the institutions of Australia, and to turn away from the institutions back home which might be different. What they are being asked to accept are "the basic structures and principles of Australian society — the Constitution and the rule of law, tolerance and equality, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language and equality of the sexes". Most, if not all, immigrants would surely not be able to reject this approach.

Ethnic communities are also being asked to accept that "the right to express one's own culture and beliefs involves a _reciprocal responsibility_ to accept the rights of others to express their views and values". This usually comes with time, with exposure to other cultures, and with the benefit of an educational program. The policy neither says nor implies anything about levels or sources of immigration, or ethnic empowerment through government funding and appointments to ethnicity-focused taxpayer-funded structures.

The time has come to bury affirmative action policies and structures for ethnic communities. Education will supplement the human instinct to find common features in the daily practices, and the shared interests, of others. The targeted outcome of such education should be one cohesive people from diverse origins. We are almost on the way there. There may be many tongues spoken in Australia. Yet, there is already substantial civic harmony between the speakers, representing all shades of colour (except possibly black) and the full spectrum of cultures. Australia is indeed a rainbow tower of babel!

Adapting an Ethiopian proverb: when the spider webs of a nationalism based on a shared humanity unite, they can tie up the lion of tribal diversity. What Australians of all origins should now work towards is the evolution of a new national identity. In this objective, is there scope for each cultural strand of Aussie humanity to articulate what it contributes to this evolving national image? Could this possibly be done on the basis of what the collective soul says? In so doing, all past contributions of value to the human spirit would be recognised. The new identity would thereby rely _less_ on highwaymen, failed excursions overseas, cross-dressing 'wannabe' humorists, caste, gender and religious wars, and the 'deputy sheriff' role (with its implications of a smug superiority on the surface, and a sub-surface insecurity).

The new identity would re-focus on communitarian aspects of society. Both individualism and tribalism would give way to community cohesion as the Aussie Family of Man.
