Take Arthur Calwell's notorious statement, made on 2 December 1947, that 'Two Wongs don't make a White'.

 Take Arthur Calwell's notorious statement, made on 2 December 1947, that 'Two Wongs don't make a White'.

This brief 'History of Words' item is really about two words, 'Wong' and 'White'. It is a cautionary tale that reminds us how understanding words, phrases, sentences and statements often requires us to have a careful look at the historical context in which they were uttered.

A famous example

Take Arthur Calwell's notorious statement, made on 2 December 1947, that 'Two Wongs don't make a White'.

Calwell at that time was Minister for Post-War Immigration in the Chifley Labor Government in Canberra. His statement is remembered as an awful bit of racism which implied that 'Wongs'(i.e., Chinese people) were not half as good as 'Whites'(i.e. people of European or Anglo-Saxon background).

As Australia has since then become more of a multicultural nation and less an offshoot of Europe, Calwell's infamous one-liner has seemed more and more unacceptable, a quintessential expression from the era in which the White Australia Policy prevailed.

It happened like this: on 2 December 1947 Calwell was answering a question in the House of Representatives, a question put to him by the Member for Balaclava, a Melbourne electorate. He was defending his unbending policy of deporting wartime Asian refugees - making a long statement in the high-pitched, croaky voice that was his trademark, a voice that was damaged by childhood diptheria. Calwell finished up with the following words:

Two wongs make it quote funny

The question from the honourable member for Balaclava also referred to a Chinese [person], who, according to today's press, has been resident in Australia for twenty years and has been told he must go ... Speaking generally, I think that there is some claim for him to be regarded as a resident of Australia, and I have no doubt that his certificate [visa] can be extended from time to time as it has been extended in the past. The gentleman's name is Wong. There are many Wongs in the Chinese community, but I have to say - and I am sure that the honourable member for Balaclava will not mind me doing so - that two Wongs do not make a White.

Now if we are to understand this final remark, it may be crucial to know that the honourable member for Balaclava was Sir Thomas White, an eminent member of the Liberal Party and thus one of Calwell's parliamentary enemies.

Calwell was being clever. His remark was a word play on the phrase 'Two wrongs do not make a right'. And his defenders, ever since, have insisted it was not a racist remark. They point out that the press chose to report the comment with the 'W' in 'White' in lower case, so that 'white' seemed to be referring to a colour rather than a surname.

Calwell's defenders also point out that he spoke a little Chinese and loved going to Chinese restaurants. They insist there was nothing racist in what Calwell said.

Was Calwell being racist? Exploring the possibilities

At the time, and since, people have asked: 'Was Calwell being racist or not?' To pursue that seemingly simple question, historians and history students could weigh up a number of possible explanations, as follows:

Calwell was not thinking in racist terms at all when he made the remark.

This assumes that Calwell was thinking only of the word play of 'Wong' (the name of the Chinese person referred to) and 'White' (the name of his political adversary). It assumes that no racist beliefs entered his head. It assumes as well that it didn't cross his mind that some listeners might interpret the word play in a racist way.

Calwell was not thinking in consciously racist terms when he made the remark, but his word play was prompted by subconscious racist beliefs.

This assumes that Calwell did harbour racist thoughts as a person, but that they were not consciously in his mind when he made the word play. It assumes, however, that his choice of the 'White/Wong' word play was sparked subconsciously by his racist beliefs.

Calwell was being deliberately racist..

This assumes that Calwell chose his words carefully to strike a responsive chord amongst Australian listeners who were racist. This means he was not playing innocent word games with the name of his political adversary 'White'.

Calwell was playing for laughs, mainly on the basis of the word play, but also knew that some listeners would make a racist association.

This assumes that Calwell thought that the humorous reaction to his word play would outweigh any criticism of him for making a racist joke. It assumes that Calwell did have racist beliefs himself, and felt safe enough to allow them to show in this word play.

In choosing among these alternatives, an historian might take note of several contextual factors, as follows: Two Wongs Can Make It White Shirt

Under Calwell, people were not allowed to settle permanently in Australia because they were Asian, a racist policy.

Calwell knew that, in 1947, racist beliefs and attitudes were common among the white Australian population. Expressions that would today be considered unacceptable were accepted by many as normal elements of everyday conversation.

Calwell knew that his remarks would be recorded by a Hansard reporter and later published in the permanent, official record of parliamentary debates.

Given the points above, which of the four interpretations do you think seems most likely to be accurate? Why?

An historian would also study the speech itself, looking for signs that Calwell had prepared the speech carefully in advance, or conversely for signs that his remarks were 'off the cuff'. When you study Calwell's words above, do they seem to be 'off the cuff', or do you get the sense that Calwell chose this words carefully, perhaps before he rose to make his speech?

What matters more - what Calwell intended or what listeners heard?

In studying this incident, we can also distinguish between 'authorial intention' and 'reader reception'. In other words, what the speaker intends can be different from what listener 'hears'. In this case, Calwell's remarks - even if not motivated by racism - offended some listeners who 'heard' them as racist remarks. Historically, this could have had dramatic consequences. Had Calwell's remarks caused widespread public uproar, the incident could have ended his political career - regardless of whether he was really being racist. (See the Postscript below for two examples of this - one real and one fictional.)

The lesson for Calwell and others seems clear - don't use expressions that can be interpreted incorrectly ... unless you are happy to be misinterpreted!

Some statements are easier to misinterpret than others. Some theorists use the term 'writerly' for such statements - in other words, the listener can 'write' their own meaning for what they hear. That's what happened with Calwell's statement.