Dispersión de subsidios 2007-

the newcomers’ point of view to the Good Neighbour Movement" (Reported by Borrie, 1959« p. 7^).

2. R. Cleaver M.F., Citizenship Convention 1957, Transcript of proceedings (typescript), p. 1*16. For a report of more sys­ tematic efforts by the government to gather information, see Kern (i9 6 0, p. 42)«,

- 128 -

groups and the rest ol' the community” . Combined with the old idea that the inner life of the ethnic communities can be mani­ pulated from outside - that headers can be "developed” - one finds the new notion, that Australians will have to work with national groupings, rather than concentrate on dispersing them* This element in thinking about communication is evident also

from Mr * M o n k ’s summary of the debate on "the new citizen at work" in the 19^2 Convention:

The general opinion was that while it was highly de­ sirable that there .should be a better coming-ling bet­ ween Australians and migrant, workers, those with

identity of interest and similar background would continue to associate in and outside of employment* Trade Unions and employers might consider whether an

effective liaison was being maintained between groups of Australian and migrant workers«-1

Partly because the need for two-way communication was be­ coming apparent and largely because it was becoming increasingly c3ear that the ethnic community could play an important positive role in assimilation, Australians began feeling their way towards acceptance of ethnic structures. Appleyard describes this

development as follows:

Years of experience in trying to resolve problems of assimilation, fortified by research ... have revealed the crucial significance of segregated ethnic comma- n. i t i c s i r. t h e a s s i m i 1 a tion pr o c ess ... A ccor d i 11g 1 y , Government policy concerning ethnic concentrations was changed, though slowly, and in 1970 is significantly different to the policy reported by Mr. Calwe5 J in

1953. (1971, p. 21)

As mentioned earlier, the view taken here is that such changes matter as a context for the study of ideas in the ethnic group even if they are only tentative. Thus one can accept Jean Max-tin's critique of Australian pluralism and still maintain that

once ethnic systems were accepted as givens and used for purposes of cenununication, ethnic groups could begin to think in terms of enhancing their collective presence in the society» They had something to build pn if they wanted to persuade the society to go further on the road to pluralism and accept* ethnic structures

r

not ns “transitional cultural way-stations «•« but as permanent features of the general social system*'. (Lawrence, 196 9 * p. 52) In fact there is something almost inevitable about such a development. „ It may be that, to begin with, acceptance of ethnic communities was simply a more informed way to work for assimila­ tion. But gradually such acceptance had repercussions on the objective itself and there occurred the well known change in aim from assimilation to integration. Moreover, though Australians invested pluralism primarily with cultural meaning and were nervous about it spilling over to the political sphere, once ethnic communities were treated as permanent* features in the social system, they could develop organisations to negotiate with the host society. Much as they disliked the term, Australians opened the way for ethnic pressure groups.

Another development in the 1960*3 was a new tendency to see problems for their effect on the migrants rather than solely for the disturbance to the native born. For example, concern with equal treatment went, beyond criticism of explicitly discrimina­ tory legislation. Mules that applied to all began to be assessed for the specific effect that they might have on newcomers * Also there was more discussion of problems that were not seen to have repercussions on the native born, such as, for example, the iso­ lation of migrant women, the psychological strains experienced by Mediterranean villagers trying to make their way in an Anglo- Saxon industrial environment, the exploitation to which newcomers were vulnerable not only in the matter of wages, which had always been seen in the context of a threat to Australian workers, but also in matters such as exorbitant rents or unreasonable fees for services.

Sensitivity to the migrant viewpoint and concern with the cost side of the migration experience as it affected the migrant

» 129 -

1 . Vne question of the 20 year residence requirement for old age pensions was raised repeatedly by the Labor tarty from 1959 onwards, on the grounds that it unfairly penalized newcomers, hventually the government abandoned the stock reply that there was no question of discrimination since Australians coming home •after long periods abroad were similarly disqualified. C f .

H™snrd, or r., voi. 26, 1 oct.

1959,

p. 1710 and voi. 33,

l- ^ c t * I60I, PP* I63I-6O; see also suggestions for a migrant

were stimulated firstly by awareness that some of the original objectives were not being achieved«, Australians could congratu­ late t herns el v e s , as they often did, on having sustained such a large-scale immigration programme witbout unmanageable social tensions. On the other hand* it was not possible to ignore that assimilation was not progressing as well as it might, that natu­ ralization rates were low, or that not enough migrants were learning English» Searching for reasons Jed interested.groups to question, on the one hand, whether it was efficient to define problems and decide on tactics without reference to how migrants saw things and, on the other hand, whether the benefits of

migration to the migrant were as great as had been previously assumed*

By 1963» for example, field research into the reasons for low naturalization rates had revealed that for many natural!.zalion was a symbolic act expressing feelings of satisfaction and iden­

tification with the country. And it was clear from the debate in the Citizenship Convention in 19*3.3 that many c-f the participants had realized this and were giving serious thought to the possibi­ lity that migrants do not get a good enough deal to make then; feel like taking the step that commits them to the country» The same mood was apparent in the discussion of low attendance and high drop-out rates from English classes. In the 1965 Convention the quest.ion was discussed with reference to the migrants* priori­ ties, their life style and general attitudes. There was talk of the newcomers* concern with financial security, which left them little energy after a long working day and the role of women in Mediterranean society which made it hard for them to go out in

the: evening and attend mixed classes; And the remedies proposed

were c.lasses at work or at home*

Secondly, as the absolute numbers of Europeans grew and substantial concentrations formed in the inner city areas, in industry and in the lower social strata, the occasions when

Australian organizations actually had to deal with migrants mul­ tiplied. When the migrants' difficulties became problems that had to be dealt with in the course of the day's work, policies and tactics worked out by Australians with Australians in mind could come to look irrelevant. Teachers facing classrooms mere

- .13.1 -

1 har» ha l f full wi th m i g r a n t c h i l d r e n could not a l w a y s k e e p to

the c o m f o r t a b l e belief, so often expressed in the early 1930{s,

that all p r o b l e m s c e a s e at the first generation* O r w e l f a r e

officers, frustrated in t heir w o r k by the b a rriers of language, s h a m e and s u s p i c i o n m ight come to doubt the e f f i c a c y of the hand

a f fr i e 11c s h i p ap i >r o a c h .

Y o u cannot conduct m i g r a t i o n like a Rotary m e e t i n g w i t h soft drinks and crac k e r s and the best of all good things in the best of all p o s s i b l e w o r l d s .«» w e are so damn

complacent« W e b e l i e v e he ought to feel l ucky that he

is in the c o u n t r y but he is g o i n g thro u g h h e l l ’s own

m i s e r y in some c ases to get a d j u s t e d and assimilated.

* »« It is futile to talk about the success of m i g r a t i o n w h e n y ou know that every s u b u r b is r e e k i n g wi t h sickness

and in s a n i t a r y c o n d i t i o n s b e c a u s e of o v e r c r o w d i n g of

the ava i l a b l e h o u s i n g by m i g r ants. It is not t heir

fault. W e brought th e m here and as soon as th e y have

got into the c o u n t r y we w i p e our hands of them ... we ought to think of them and t heir p r o b l e m s and ought not

to be smug about them , , «. We ha v e to turn over the u n ­

p l easant s i t u a t i o n and find out wh at we are up ag ainst. And y o u do not do that by h a v i n g little m e e t i n g s in town halls and h a v i n g a cup of tc-a behind the a s p i ­ distras and b e i n g da m n sure that y o u do not have a m i g r a n t n e a r y o u in y o u r own life.

T h i s extract from a s p e e c h in the course of the est i m a t e s d e b a t e

, 2

in j9oG i l l u s t r a t e s h o w self doubt a nd a ne w r e a d i n e s s to look

at the cost of m i g r a t i o n to the m i g r a n t could grow from in c r e a s i n g

v i s i b i l i t y of the m i g r a n t s1 d i f f i c u l t i e s and problems,

Finally, from the m i d - I 9 6 0 1s o nwards conc e r n w i t h p r e v e n t i n g high d e p a r t u r e r ates and m a i n t a i n i n g an adequate infl o w of E u r o ­ p e a n s at a time w h e n c o n d i t i o n s in Europe were i m p r o v i n g and w h e n the mer e affluent E u r o p e a n c o u n t r i e s wo re a t t r a c t i n g migr a n t

1. In 1959 H. O p p e r m a n , la ter M i n i s t e r for Immigration, assured

the House that "... a f t e r a few m o n t h s in s c hool moo t of the

c h i l d r e n b e c o m e so t h o r o u g h l y A u s t r a l i a n that only their

names d i s t i n g u i s h t h e m from the native born children". Hansard,

H. of R., V o 1, 22, 2? Aug. 1959, p. ?1I. T h i s mi ght be c o m ­

pared to Je a n M a r t i n ' s account of the tea c h e r s * exper i e n c e s

and r e a c t i o n s (1972b, pp. 8-10). E l s e w h e r e M a r t i n m e n t i o n s

p r o f e s s i o n a l s in dire c t contact w i t h m i g r a n t s as an important s o u r c e of p r e s s u r e in r e l a t i o n tc poli c i e s in the h a n d l i n g of

m i g r a n t s and l ater i m m i g r a t i o n itself (1975b, p, 360),

* Han s a r d, H. of IU , V o 1.28, 6 Oct. i960, p. 1772«

- 132 -

labour, also stimulated a critical'approach to what Australia i

ac lua.liy offered mi grants .

b. Towards equality of opportunity1**4.

Sometime after the mid-1960‘s, one may detect signs that problems associated with ethnicity began to be seen in the con­ text of the society’s responsibility to equalise access to the good and help the disadvantaged overcome their liabilities* This development was only in its infancy in the late 19t>0*s when there was still strong resistance to the idea of favourable discrimi­ nation. In 1969, the Minister for Immigration gave ehis answer to a proposal that newcomers should be granted a tax-free peri oca "There is a lot to do in terms of making sure that a migrant coming here is not at a disadvantage compared with other citi­ zens ... I am quite persuaded that one thing we will never be able to do is positively to advantage migrants compared with

p

other persons in the community* however, opposition to favour- ritism was only one element in the Minister's reply. The ozher elements were awareness of the migrants’ disadvantaged position in comparison with Australians and an acknowledgement that it is the society’s responsibility to remove such disadvantages*

As knowledge about the migrants * difficulties accumulated, the disadvantaged position of migrants in relation to the native

1. Ibid«, Vo 3.. 97, 3 Oct. 1967, pp. 1602-23 and Yol., Gh< 19 Aug. 3.9o9t pp. 3'6‘3~9« See also the report of the Immigration Planning Counci l on the programme for the period 19*68-75 * pp, h-2 and T9«

2t V/c Snedden, Hansard , K. of R. , Vo 1 . 65, 26 Sept, 1969?

p. 205T. Notably, however, the year before, when discussing the disadvantaged position of migrants in housing, Mr. Sned­ don hinted at the need for favourable discrimination * To the

I.968

Convention he said: "In one sense it is best that ho be treated just as an Australian member of the community* But this is too simple a view ... migrants are all different and there is urgent need for continuous professionai assess­

ment of the nature and magnitude of migrant problems, «’digest p.l4- By the late I960 * s the situation had been reached when

favourable discrimination was conceivable and could be appealed to depending on the measure proposed*

-

133

-

born became more evident. Of course there has always been some concern with the comparative position of natives and newcomers• But in earlier years it was legal rather than social inequality that was under scrutiny* The change in perspective is evident in the discussions of the migrants1 housing problems and on edu­ cation* In the 1950‘s the focus was on equalizing eligibility for public housing. In the late l$>60*s the emphasis was on the

j

inequalities in real opportunity» ' In 1970 the Leader of the Opposition talked of the migrants‘ problems in all spheres of life in terms of relative deprivation. In his address to the Citizenship Convention he said:

We have thought it natural that migrants should be content to fill the lowest paid occupations, accept the costliest housing in the ugliest areas, send their children to the most crowded and least equipped schools and accept worse health services, worse public trans­ port , fewer recreational amenities and poorer urban services .

Another development of some significance was that a longer time perspective was adopted when thinking of migrant prahle» . It was not just that policy makers became aware that it takes migrants much longer to adjust than was previously assumed. Some

thought was also given to the possibility that initial disadvan­ tages breed permanent inequality extending beyond the first generation. Thinking along these lines gave new content to the traditional concern about the long term effect of the itroaigratiosi programme on the character of Australian society. To the tradi­ tional anxiety about cultural segregation was added a concern with social and economic segregation* In other words, the

“little Italys“ began to be seen not only as cultural islands but also as population pockets segregated from the rest by their unequal access to the good. And the idea began to emerge that this was as much a threat to the blueprint for Australia as were

In document HABITABILIDAD Y POLÍTICA DE VIVIENDA EN MÉXICO (página 106-110)