What do you think?
Rate this book
Australian Foreign Affairs #5
Are We Asian Yet?: History vs Geography
“One of Australia’s defining characteristics is the belief that the nation is headed for an Asian future. Destiny allows little room for choice.” DAVID WALKER
The fifth issue of Australian Foreign Affairs examines Australia’s struggle to define its place in Asia as it balances its historic ties to the West with its geography.
Are We Asian Yet? explores Australia’s changing population, outlook and identity as it adjusts to the Asian Century.
PLUS Correspondence from Alison Broinowski , Jim Molan , Michael Shoebridge and Paul Bracken.
The fifth issue of Australian Foreign Affairs examines Australia’s struggle to define its place in Asia as it balances its historic ties to the West with its geography.
Are We Asian Yet? explores Australia’s changing population, outlook and identity as it adjusts to the Asian Century.
PLUS Correspondence from Alison Broinowski , Jim Molan , Michael Shoebridge and Paul Bracken.
146 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 1, 2019
6 people are currently reading
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 2 reviews
April 29, 2019
For people who are concerned about Australia's place in our region, the current issue of the Australian Foreign Affairs journal could be an interesting one, but I confess to a little weariness about the topic, Are We Asian Yet? History vs Geography. Individually and collectively, the writers of the four essays have thoughtful ideas to contribute but I have heard most of it before. (Not because I'm any kind of expert, but because this issue of Australia's place in Asia is a perennial).
There are four essays:
Significant Other: Anxieties about Australia's Asian future, by David Walker
Red detachment, Is Chinese culture beyond reach? by Linda Jaivin
Can Australia be one of us? The view from Asia by Sarah Teo
The Rookie PMs: How Canberra's leadership circus is damaging ties with Asia, by George Megalogenis
Yes, there is Australian anxiety about the future. But competitors for and resisters to US domination in the region were always going to arise. And it seems to me that one reason That Man keeps tearing up US agreements about everything is that the writing is already on the wall and he'd rather opt out than face the humiliation of losing its superpower influence in our region. #ChangeHappens...
Yes, Chinese culture is complicated, filtered to us through government propaganda on the one hand and dissidents on the other. Yes, there has been racism and othering of Chinese people and their culture. But there's no significance IMO to the fact that Australians don't know the names of Chinese Nobel Prize for Literature winners Gao Xingjian and Mo Yan. Most Australians don't know the names of any Nobel winners, perhaps not even our own Patrick White. And when it comes to not knowing much about Chinese arts in general, well, of course, it would be better if Australians knew more about any aspect of their neighbours' culture, but consider the burden: even with the best will in the world, Australians cannot be familiar with all the cultures of its own multicultural population. And even if we prioritised Asian cultures, it's still an impossible task, given the number of countries and the diversity of cultures within them. #DiversityIsComplicated.
The chapter which bothered me most was the one by George Megalogenis. His assumption seems to be that 'being Asian' is somehow related to the percentage of Asian-born migrants who make Australia their home.
So we are 'Asian' if our population morphs into an Asian-dominated demography? Let me clear, I don't object to any such change. What I'm querying is the assumption that such Asians remain 'Asian' in identity. As far as I'm concerned they have the potential to be, like all our other migrants, (including me) Australians of one sort or another, comfortable with a malleable identity and a dual heritage. And what if, as in Britain, the face of Australians becomes increasingly brown, with more migration from Africa and the Indian sub-continent? Would that make us more, or less, 'Asian'? IMO whatever 'being Asian' means, it doesn't mean defining ourselves by colour or ethnicity, and especially not if that's used as some sort of code for making ourselves acceptable to our neighbours.
To read the rest of my review please visit https://anzlitlovers.com/2019/04/29/a...
There are four essays:
Significant Other: Anxieties about Australia's Asian future, by David Walker
Red detachment, Is Chinese culture beyond reach? by Linda Jaivin
Can Australia be one of us? The view from Asia by Sarah Teo
The Rookie PMs: How Canberra's leadership circus is damaging ties with Asia, by George Megalogenis
Yes, there is Australian anxiety about the future. But competitors for and resisters to US domination in the region were always going to arise. And it seems to me that one reason That Man keeps tearing up US agreements about everything is that the writing is already on the wall and he'd rather opt out than face the humiliation of losing its superpower influence in our region. #ChangeHappens...
Yes, Chinese culture is complicated, filtered to us through government propaganda on the one hand and dissidents on the other. Yes, there has been racism and othering of Chinese people and their culture. But there's no significance IMO to the fact that Australians don't know the names of Chinese Nobel Prize for Literature winners Gao Xingjian and Mo Yan. Most Australians don't know the names of any Nobel winners, perhaps not even our own Patrick White. And when it comes to not knowing much about Chinese arts in general, well, of course, it would be better if Australians knew more about any aspect of their neighbours' culture, but consider the burden: even with the best will in the world, Australians cannot be familiar with all the cultures of its own multicultural population. And even if we prioritised Asian cultures, it's still an impossible task, given the number of countries and the diversity of cultures within them. #DiversityIsComplicated.
The chapter which bothered me most was the one by George Megalogenis. His assumption seems to be that 'being Asian' is somehow related to the percentage of Asian-born migrants who make Australia their home.
Are we Asian yet? The answer is yes in the booming inner city and outer suburbs of Melbourne, Sydney and even parts of Brisbane. Already the Asian-born outnumber the Australian-born in Melbourne's inner city, and in Auburn, in Sydney's west. They match the Australian-born in Melbourne's Dandenong, Sydney's Parramatta and Brisbane's Sunnybank. But the rest of the country is either still in transition or caught in a time warp, with an ageing Anglo-European population that is not being replenished with new immigrants. (p. 75)
So we are 'Asian' if our population morphs into an Asian-dominated demography? Let me clear, I don't object to any such change. What I'm querying is the assumption that such Asians remain 'Asian' in identity. As far as I'm concerned they have the potential to be, like all our other migrants, (including me) Australians of one sort or another, comfortable with a malleable identity and a dual heritage. And what if, as in Britain, the face of Australians becomes increasingly brown, with more migration from Africa and the Indian sub-continent? Would that make us more, or less, 'Asian'? IMO whatever 'being Asian' means, it doesn't mean defining ourselves by colour or ethnicity, and especially not if that's used as some sort of code for making ourselves acceptable to our neighbours.
To read the rest of my review please visit https://anzlitlovers.com/2019/04/29/a...
Displaying 1 of 2 reviews