(no subject)
Crossposted to forward_looking
this prewar prediction caught my attention.
“Can the English-speaking peoples protect Australia as a white man’s country? They can to-day. But at a time when the energetic and capable Americans are very dubious whether they could even to-day protect the Philippines against a Japanese attack, it is not without pertinence to point out that any defense of Australia must be accomplished very far from the home bases of both Great Britain and the United States - and that an armed China would have enormous man-power at its disposal.”
(…)
“Equally obviously Premier Hughes fears, and fears rightly, that Japanese eyes are turned towards Australia. His speech breathes that fear throughout. But he pins his faith to the British Navy, to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, and to an understanding with America. He appeals to America. ‘If she can not agree with Japan, how is she to help Australia?’ But does America really want to help Australia in the event of Japan’s insistence on freedom of entry? It has long been obvious to the thinkers of the great Republic that Japan must soon ‘find room somewhere for her rapidly expanding population’. And she is taking the necessary steps to preserve the purity of her own white race. But it does not follow that she is equally anxious about the purity of the Australian section of the European race. It is actually in the mind of many Americans that Australia, being the only empty area of any magnitude in the world, and more closely connected with Asia than any other land, is the natural sphere of Japan’s extension (…)”
Though clearly racist, the argument proceeds in a convincing almost logical manner given the underlying assumptions. If Japan want to expand their empire by attacking their neighbours, thinly populated Australia seems like low-hanging fruit compared to China with its massive population. The size of your army has always been important, right? And wouldn't Japan want to export an expanding population and settle them elsewhere, in a parallell to what a rising Britain did earlier? This commentary takes common knowledge, extrapolates trends and assume that history repeats itself in similar patterns. Yet it gets it wrong on so many levels.
But I cannot see how a contemporary would go about picking apart this commentators' argument. I think future studies and more generally our predictions and expectations of the future fall into the same trap. We extrapolate a lot and draw parallells to past events, yet I see few predictions questioning our assumptions and beliefs. This is somewhat ironic, considering that most of us also believe in a more advanced future where we ourselves would seem backward and ignorant.
this prewar prediction caught my attention.
“Can the English-speaking peoples protect Australia as a white man’s country? They can to-day. But at a time when the energetic and capable Americans are very dubious whether they could even to-day protect the Philippines against a Japanese attack, it is not without pertinence to point out that any defense of Australia must be accomplished very far from the home bases of both Great Britain and the United States - and that an armed China would have enormous man-power at its disposal.”
(…)
“Equally obviously Premier Hughes fears, and fears rightly, that Japanese eyes are turned towards Australia. His speech breathes that fear throughout. But he pins his faith to the British Navy, to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, and to an understanding with America. He appeals to America. ‘If she can not agree with Japan, how is she to help Australia?’ But does America really want to help Australia in the event of Japan’s insistence on freedom of entry? It has long been obvious to the thinkers of the great Republic that Japan must soon ‘find room somewhere for her rapidly expanding population’. And she is taking the necessary steps to preserve the purity of her own white race. But it does not follow that she is equally anxious about the purity of the Australian section of the European race. It is actually in the mind of many Americans that Australia, being the only empty area of any magnitude in the world, and more closely connected with Asia than any other land, is the natural sphere of Japan’s extension (…)”
Though clearly racist, the argument proceeds in a convincing almost logical manner given the underlying assumptions. If Japan want to expand their empire by attacking their neighbours, thinly populated Australia seems like low-hanging fruit compared to China with its massive population. The size of your army has always been important, right? And wouldn't Japan want to export an expanding population and settle them elsewhere, in a parallell to what a rising Britain did earlier? This commentary takes common knowledge, extrapolates trends and assume that history repeats itself in similar patterns. Yet it gets it wrong on so many levels.
But I cannot see how a contemporary would go about picking apart this commentators' argument. I think future studies and more generally our predictions and expectations of the future fall into the same trap. We extrapolate a lot and draw parallells to past events, yet I see few predictions questioning our assumptions and beliefs. This is somewhat ironic, considering that most of us also believe in a more advanced future where we ourselves would seem backward and ignorant.