>>43613
>white australia policy was held till the 70's.
It was actually successfully dismantled piece by piece from 1940's onwards, and was first officially "introduced" in 1901 mainly to keep out Asians. Before that, mining, railroads, businesses…it was a free-for-all, mostly.
>As for ownership of land that doesn't matter to the victor goes the spoils. many people have lost their lands to other we don't just give it back. Abbo's didn't even have a concept of exclusive rights, abbos didn't even know stralya was an island. Australia as an island nation was born out of colonial power.
Funny thing is, I wasn't disputing that. What I was disputing was the idea that I needed to be booted out 'cause Australia is a land of white people, mate (and I'd like to re-iterate, most of you fellas wouldn't even know I had partial Turkish ancestry if you met me in person unless I told you). It's not Germany or Sweden, which nobody disputes as Germanic/Nordic countries, where a white person would be within rights to tell a black person to piss off. Abos were technically "first" here, but now that they've lost it, well, who does it belong to?
>In the future australia will be overrun with hordes of muzzies and they are not going to just give the land back m8.
Don't you mean "hordes of asians"?
>different people can integrate into a society if they
>1. arnt cunts
>2. share religion, blood or language
>3. have a very low population
Sounds reasonable to me.
>I hate our faggot leaders who are hell bent on importing hordes of people who won't assimilate and will want to replace our culture with theirs
I hate our electoral system which permits for the PM to bow out and nominate someone else from their party to take over. I didn't vote for Turnbull, I wouldn't vote for Turnbull, and I won't vote for Turnbull, so why did I get him?
I ask you, which other country on earth has a system so retarded?
>oh and I don't hate you, just get better arguments.
I don't hate you too, but I don't think your arguments are solid either.
>>43559
First off, I got no clue what Detroit and America has to with Australia, so I'm just gonna ignore that part.
As mentioned earlier, numbers starting from around 1901 to 1945 are kinda useless because of the White Australia policy which kicked out all the non-Europeans starting from 1901 up until the mid-40's when it started to get dismantled. I would like to note that even Wikipedia notes the population of Europeans around 1891 to be around 94%, and that starting from 1880's onwards (or maybe earlier, can't remember), legislation was already being introduced to boot out the non-whites and limit further non-white immigration.
>non-european descended australians are no more australian than any australian is aborigine.
Aborigines are by default "Australian". Also, disagree with the first part.
>you can't credit asian, indian, black or muslim populations in america, england, france or sweden to be the builders of any of those countries,
No, because they didn't build those countries.
>so why would 'non-european' australians be considered the builders of (even modern) australia?
Because they were there at the start and they contributed. And I would genuinely like to see you try to defend the idea that no non-Europeans contributed to the building of modern Australia.
>>43526
Read like flamebait to me. Especially since the first thing that anyone wanting to drag me into a flame war does is casually bring up Armenians, and occasionally the Greeks.