Two weeks ago, Mehreen Faruqi delivered her maiden speech in the Australian Senate.
Determined to showcase her intersectionality, Faruqi made the standard anti-white claim about Australian history. She described Australia as a ‘stolen land’, acknowledged the importance of ‘first Australians’, and in doing so undermined the degree to which any Australian nationalism can morally exist.
Then paradoxically, Farqui highlighted her own multicultural background, claiming “I’m not going home.”
Question: how do we counter this frequent challenge to Australian nationalism, that aims to constrain the present by attacking our past?
As explained earlier this year, there is no people on Earth whose existence has not necessitated the infliction of violence, dispossession and/or replacement immigration adverse to another population’s genetic interests. In this regard, Australian colonisation was no different, if not altruistic compared to other conquests throughout history.
Therefore, just as receiving equitable remedies requires one to come with ‘clean hands’ to the court, no person can fundamentally challenge the basic morality of human conquest, given all groups have benefited from this historic behaviour. This is particularly the case when such activities were undertaken in a time before state sovereignty and related norms of international law.
Now we can condemn excesses that colonisation has caused, and profess its occurrence in the modern-day would present undue moral hazard. But is clearly not feasible, realistic or even desirable to make blanket moral statements about human expansionist tendencies, that serve genetic interests.
Moreover, in advocating for mass immigration, Faruqi is seeking that similar genetic damage be inflicted upon European Australians as occurred to Aboriginals during colonisation. Despite declaring the iniquity of Australia’s colonial past, Faruqi is using a similar style to those she purports to oppose.
Evidently, questions of land, sovereignty and nation should be more be about who takes the spoils, rather than vague moral abstractions that open more questions than they answer.