top of page
Search

Eurocentrism: The Coloniser of Australian Immigration

  • Writer: Ella Zhang
    Ella Zhang
  • Aug 18
  • 5 min read

The installation of Peter Drew’s Aussie posters was the first instance when I felt immense pride to see and to be one of the Australian Peoples of Colour get recognised for who they are, Aussies.


Not everyone seemed to agree with me though, like the Instagram account Ausmaxx. A few weeks ago, their defacing of the beloved Aussie posters made the round on the internet, vandalising “Aussie” to “Chinese”, “Indian” and “not”. Beyond the disappointment, I was more compelled to reflect on why this happened. Yes, I was saddened to see that Australian education failed two grown men on what even primary school children know – national identity isn’t a simple question answered by show and tell, but more so reflective in this question of identity myself: what does it mean to be an Australian?


Ausmaxx vandalising "Aussie" posters
Ausmaxx vandalising "Aussie" posters

History is not in the past

With the rising popularity of the far right, antiimmigration, Pauline Hanson’s “Monoculture” and now Ausmaxx’s blatant xenophobia, there isn’t a better time than now to revisit this age-old question. Not to quickly come to vague answers along the lines of “everyone is welcome” or decided based on “years lived in Australia”, but rather to consider the context under which a necessity of “who gets to be Australian” materialises.


The country’s last century has been defined by global immigration, but some immigration was more welcome than others. A narrative of “us” verses “them” was present from the start. From 1901, the White Australia Policy heavily regulated non-white immigration, setting the tone for persisting Eurocentrism in Australia. “Us” White Australians ought to “protect” “our” land from “them”, the other immigrants who surely cannot be Australians. This response, almost despotic, to “who gets to be Australian” dictates that Australian citizens must be white, English speaking and European, others who come are simply visitors. Thus began the long-lasting colonisation of Eurocentrism in Australian Immigration.


The Australian Stereotype

If you search “Australians” on Google, the first images that pops up are of Caucasian Australians. This inherent presumption of Australians to be white isn’t realistic to the true demographic anymore. Immigration trends shifted from predominantly European, with England and Ireland being top countries for the overseas-born Australian population in 1901 to Asian with India and China in 2021. Despite a radical shift in this distribution, attitudes from that “Whites-only” era still lingers. It seemed Australia’s past of European definition solidified and restricted our present ability to welcome change. Australia has a unique culture, don’t get me wrong, but embracing other cultures introduced by immigration does not diminish or threaten the traditions that make it uniquely Australian.


First images in Google Search on "Australians" are all Caucasian
Happy-go-lucky Caucasian Australians, even our AI-generated Aussie is white!

“I was here first, so I am the standard!” Fallacy

Furthermore, the expectation of assimilation can reproduce a fundamentally Eurocentric conception of Australian identity. Europeanism and its vastly analogous culture were dominant during the times of White Australia. The British that historically established the dominant cultural norm comes to perceive its own and adjacent cultural characteristics as neutral, universal and inherently Australian, while incoming cultures are treated as deviations requiring assimilation. The expectation for all immigrants to integrate into the society is not neutral – migrants whose backgrounds more closely resemble the historically dominant culture may face fewer pressures to relinquish aspects of their identity, while migrants from culturally distinct backgrounds can be expected to make greater adjustments in order to be perceived as sufficiently “Australian”. Assimilation therefore risks transforming the culture of whichever group historically held power into a permanent benchmark for belonging set for the rest of eternity. Why should being Australian require conformity to a cultural standard evolved under a Eurocentric past, rather than allowing Australian identity itself to evolve alongside the people who now constitute it? This rigidness doesn’t fly.


 As the Australian demographic diversifies, European influence no longer overtly controls Australian legislation and the “official narrative”. To see my country open to a diversity previously unobserved in anywhere in the world makes me incredibly proud, but as an overseas-born, immigrant Chinese Australian, it is surprising to observe that even after the removal of Eurocentrism, its sentiments remain influential to some Australians, who are still terrified of immigrants bringing non-European culture in.


To them I want to say – to sanctimoniously place Western customs as being vulnerable to invasion is no news, yet if immigrants were truly evil, Australia would’ve been The Mongolian Octopus Land years ago.


Illustration of the Mongolian Octopus
The Mongolian Octopus

Catch the mole! Hate to whoever stands out!

Above was a red herring; to say Australians are terrified of immigrants assumes a dichotomy between the two, either you are a “full-blooded, true-blue” Aussie or a dirty, job stealing immigrant. Except the First Nations People, everyone is an immigrant here, the difference just lies between how many generations back did your family come over.


Even while the gradual dismantling of racist policies and the adoption of multiculturalism transformed Australia into a diverse society today, our understanding of national identity remains covertly influenced by 20th century European ideals in 2026. It subtly imprinted on all Australians a distinction between European and non-European Immigrants, justifying the former and vilifying the latter.


Consider two immigrant families, the Smiths from the UK and the Lis from China. Both families may arrive in Australia under the same immigration system, speak English, work, pay taxes and participate equally in their local communities. Yet their experiences of belonging will differ because of their racial visibility. The Smiths, as white British migrants, may be perceived simply as immigrants who have chosen to make Australia their home, while the Lis may be identified more as “Chinese” than “Australian.” Think about which family is more likely to be asked “where are you really from?”


Even if both families have lived in Australia for generations, the Smiths’ European appearance allow their migrant background to become socially invisible, making them fit in more easily, whereas the Lis would continue to have their ethnicity foregrounded. Whiteness illegitimately operates as an unmarked form of Australianness: European migrants can become “Australian” without their ethnicity being continually noticed, while non-European migrants remain visibly “Chinese,” “Indian,” or “African” regardless of their connection to Australia.


In Conclusion…

White Australia institutionalised a particular conception of who belonged to the Australian nation and these cultural assumptions are left behind even after their formal abolition. It’s long overdue for Australia to decolonialise from this antiquated attitude. Eurocentrism shaped much of our current image of an Australian, but it doesn’t reflect who we truly are, neither does it help us to accept who we truly are. This is not to say everyone can be an Australian, or Australians cannot be defined, rather, we should accept that definitions of Australiana are slowly changing. We must stop perpetuating a European influenced Australia and start to embrace diversity over assimilation.


At the end of the day, there isn’t really a question to be asked about whether Australians should continue to uphold the Eurocentric assumption of our identity or welcome the gradual shift to a cosmopolitan one, because the latter is already here.


References:

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page