I’ve always considered myself a bit of a hippie, coming form a family that has an environmental conscience, we’ve had bucket in the shower for years, taken material bags to the supermarket before green bags were ‘trendy’, my internet home page is blackle not google and we always recycle. So the answer that jumped into my head immediately was stop the press; books have no place in a society were technology rules, and global warming is our biggest threat. sorry Beatles but no one wants to be a paper-back writer. It took a little while for me to subdue the hippie inside me and think about the advantages and disadvantages of having books available both online and in hard copy.

i personally have found that when a book is avaliale online such as a weekly reading for a university unit I will take advantage of that and read it off the computer, it work well for me as im in bed under the covers with my laptop keeping my legs warm listening to cut copy on window media player I think it makes the experience of reading Andrew Herod’s “The practice of international labor solidarity and the geography of the global economy” even more enjoyable (or bearable). Generally I print out the articles only if they are significant relavance to an essay or other marked assignment, and this means I am able to leave out particular pages should they be of no relavance to my purpose, saving paper ans ink in the porcess. Since beginning University I have used the online books available through the libraries catalogue to my advantage. Having resources available online has many advantages:

1. the obvious factor that it saves paper
2. more than one person can read it at a time
3. They are mighty useful when one is in need of more references at 2am the morning before an essay is due.

And yet there is other factors we have take into account before we burn all books and send printing companies out of business.  Are having these books available online a more energy environmentally sustainable way of getting information? It is true as well that there are advantages to books in hard copy form; they can be taken anywhere which makes reading or doing reach outside in the sun much easier. A hard copy also means you’re less likely to be caught with cramps in your legs, a strained neck and a head ache from staring at a screen for hours. But on more important not I would like to bring up the potential effects that moving from hard copy to online books would have on the environment and also the possible international effects.

There are arguments that are true about the longevity of the book and arguments can be made to keep it in our culture. Computers use energy this is true and each time you want to read a book this would mean using more energy or wattage. Where as one a book has been made there are no further energy costs. Having all reading material online would mean computers would be on constantly, to read papers, check the weather, read a novel, and research for papers essays and assignments, with implications of constant of energy use.

The one has to question the justice in having books only available online and immediate reaction is that the book would reach more audiences, and this argument can be seen to be true in the developed world, where internet is readily available to the majority of the population through private computers of internet cafes. However developing nations who are already being affected by the gap between them and the developed world would pushed further away from pulling themselves out of poverty. The individuals from these nations are unable to pay for internet access and the governments are not able to provide schemes to assist the majority in the ability to gain it in the way that developed nations are able to. As exemplified in the Australian Labor parties pledge .

One cannot make the argument that (all) books are a waste of paper; It has to be said that there are most defiantly greater wastes of trees that exist today, flyers, advertisements; magazines that tell you how to lose weight, the books surly should be the last of all paper products to be abandoned. But the advantages of having books online are obvious and well worth the sacrifice by ensuring the prolonged existence of our forests.  It is then perhaps adequate to suggest the gradual phasing out of books in hard copy form and through this gradual process ensuring any inequalities that may occur because of their abolition are solved.

Has your understanding of immigration policy, the ‘other’ racism, Australian society and refugees changed because of your experience at the immigration museum?

I arrived at the immigration museum at 9.45am and spent a cool 15 minutes waiting for the doors to open; I had been sceptical in the choice of location for the field trip (there could not be anything new for me to learn, when this very same museum was visited by my 12 year old sister earlier this year.) I found however upon entry (after politely declining the invitation to visit the other, less free, exhibitions) that my views on migration to Australia, and the role that racism has played (both in the legal documents and policies of the governments as well as social trends) were altered as I began to understand the major role these elements play in our identities, as individuals and as a nation.

Immigration plays a chief part in Australian history and its future, what I found particularly interesting about the exhibition was the timeline displayed on the walls dating back to pre-discovery. The exhibition explores the history of immigration policy and how it has changed dramatically over the past two hundred years. Four timeframes outline the main threads in immigration policy: the gold rush days of the 1840s to 1900, Federation to the end of the Second World War (1901 to 1945), then post-war to the early seventies (1946 to 1972) and finally 1973 to the present day.

What I found particularly interesting was the use of laws by the government to limit the number persons from certain nationalities entering Australia, at certain periods in our history, such as the anti Chinese legislation passed in the 1850’s or the use of a dictation test to help exclude non-European migration (later becoming known as the immigration restrictions Act. of 1890.) I also found interesting the reasons for immigration to Australia for example the post war ‘populate or perish’ immigration program, and later (during the 1970’s) restrictions were put on those migrating to Australia for reasons of ‘family reunion’ which was the more common reason for migration. Instead the government favoured and pushed for skilled labour immigrants, which were sort after at the time.

Another key feature of the museum is racism, which resulted from this mass from of immigration. The White Australia Policy, which excluded all non-Europeans from entry into Australia, still existed in part until the early 1970’s. A key feature missing from the museum, due to its more recent occurrence – the official apology given by the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to the aboriginal community. The sorry speech itself took many years and a change in government to eventuate. The policies involving the aboriginal people such as the removal of their children continued until only recently in a historical context. The Stolen Generation spans 100 years finished only in (estimated) 1969. Aboriginals weren’t given the vote until 1963 and National sorry day was not established until 1998 (a mere 10 years ago)

 It was in the immigration museum that I made the connection that these racist trends shown in past generations to immigrants, (and the aboriginal population) as well as the strong racist influences on past policies of the government, still live strong in Australia today. Immigration policies have shaped Victoria and Australia since the 1800s and these policies have been a significant factor in forming a national identity, a national identity that in my opinion is still significantly influenced by racism. This is exemplified by the strong racist themes seen in the Graffiti Latrinalia of male toilets- more so than female (so I hear) and its eventual climax at points as seen in the Cronulla riots.

 Leaving the museum, I felt conflicted in my views of the representation of Australia. We are a proudly multi-cultural society who has serious issues with racism. (Would you like sugar in that cup of irony?) However I accept that from where we started Australia has come a long way, in a very short space of time, and because of that I’m still proud to be Australian. 

on wednesday morning me and my friend chuck went to get our last RABIES vaccination!!! as we are travelling to mexico (hopefully) in july for 8 months were rabies in dogs and some monkeys (maybe??) is prevalent (haha big word) it was somewhat painful…. i now have a sore arm and chuck’s arm is gross and red like an apple.