Nearly White Australia: The Exceptional Case of a Christian Syrian Family

George  Facoory  was  born  in  Tripoli,  Syria  (now  Lebanon)  probably in 1844.1 In 1924, after having spent several years in New Zealand, he travelled aboard the S.S. Moeraki with his second wife Nezha and young daughter Mary from their home in Dunedin to Melbourne, Australia.2 It is not known what year he left his homeland and moved to New Zealand. The purpose of his journey to Melbourne was to reunite with two of his sons, James and John Batrouney who were children of his first marriage. The pair owned and operated a successful produce store on Little Lonsdale Street in the heart of the Melbourne, which would also support the Facoorys, particularly as George had retired from his job as a draper and Nezha’s employment was home duties.3 John and James moved to Melbourne towards the end of the nineteenth century however little more is known about their migration to Australia.4 George had two other sons from his first marriage, Spiridon and Farah. Their whereabouts in 1924 are likewise unknown.

The Facoory and Batrouney sides of the family settled and expanded greatly in Melbourne. They played significant roles in their community. George’s life, and particularly that of his son James provide useful insights into both Syrian emigration and the impact of the White Australia policy on Syrian born Christians. Although the focus on one family, despite its size, prevents broad extrapolations or generalisations from being made, the Facoorys and Batrouneys nevertheless seem to provide a useful lens through which various historiographical understandings can be evaluated. George and his family were exceptional. In certain instances, the story of the family appears to corroborate academic notions relating to gradual assimilation. Yet they demonstrated a remarkable capacity to retain important religious and cultural traditions, something, which academics would regard as rare.

The information relating to the Facoorys and Batrouneys was predominately collected from various archival sources located at the National Archives of Australia in Melbourne. A small, limited case study documenting the history of some members of the family was also discovered and used to aid analysis where possible. In the research process, many gaps in the history and some contradictory pieces of information about the Facoorys and Batrouneys were identified. Every facet of such contradictions cannot be discussed within the scope of this essay. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that a central part of a historian’s role is to deal with and overcome ambiguities and inconsistencies and attempt to comprehend and present the proper picture.

Notwithstanding the contested historical and philosophical foundations of the White Australia policy, it seems accurate analysis requires an approach in which Australia is recognised distinctly as a unique country. Australia was both a British colony with strong legal and community ties to the Empire, and a “peculiarly Australian nation” underpinned by domestic conceptions of sovereignty and culture.5 Previously, White Australia has been interpreted  as part of a nineteenth century transnational phenomenon in which ‘whiteness’,  as a Western construct of identity, impelled a desire for ethnic uniformity throughout the world.6 This global view however appears to be remiss having regard to the idiosyncratic composition of Australia prior to Federation. A cosmopolitan interpretation appears liable to overlook the distinctive nature of the White Australia policy. Further, it could also be seen to neglect the fact that despite some international consistency, the meaning and implications of ‘whiteness’ have immemorially shifted between social, political and geographical contexts.7 The somewhat inextricable link between European colonialism  and the construction of ‘whiteness’ seems to be the most accurate indicator of the origin of the White Australia policy. 8 This line of thought identifies the source of the policy as the systematic dispossession and persecution of the Indigenous Aborigines after British settlement in 1788. 9 However, perhaps more importantly, it recognises that the materialisation of racial policies will be unique to the countries in which they are created.10 Accordingly, a judicious analysis of the White Australia policy must focus, in specific terms, on the domestic social and political climate that brought the policy to fruition.

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, many of the disparate Australian colonies experienced marked immigration growth from numerous non-­‐European  countries. This change in pattern was perceived by much of the populace as a potentially deleterious threat to both cultural homogeneity and opportunities for labour.11 Consequently, between 1891 and 1901, provisions already restrictive of Chinese immigration were expanded to include all Asiatic and non‐European peoples.12 The process culminated in the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 and codified the White Australia policy. Some historians regard the policy as political in origin, citing the influence of theorist John Stewart Mill on British colonial policies.13 However, it seems erroneous not to posit it creation within the frameworks of nationalism and racism. Advocates of the political interpretation point to Mill’s principle that an operational liberal democracy required the institutionalisation of a uniform nationality.14 Yet despite its resemblance to the consequences of the White Australia policy, little explicit evidence seems to substantiate this link beyond mere correlation. Australia’s acquiescence to the inclusion a Dictation Test in the Immigration Restriction Act, exhorted by British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Joseph Chamberlain, may illustrate a distant link between Mill and the fledgling Federation.15 Yet such influence could only have concerned pragmatic implementation rather than policy foundations. On the other hand, nationalism, racism and the White Australia policy seem indissoluble. Indeed, the policy was central to the advent of a collective national identity. In 1901, Alfred Deakin, then Attorney General, illustratively declared “no motive operated more powerfully” in uniting the divergent colonies towards Federation than the fervent belief that the country should “remain one people without the admixture of other races”.16 The importance of race in the creation of the Act was patently clear and the persistent references to racial purity in the Parliamentary debates regarding the Act  appears to illustrate that the term ‘undesirable’ was synonymous with coloured.17 It can reasonably be concluded that the influx of immigrants pronounced an already acute Australian class-­‐consciousness underpinned by a strong nationalistse ntiment and accentuated ingrained racist dispositions.18

In studying emigration and immigration, it is crucially important to establish why individuals chose to abandon their homelands.19 The exact number of Syrian expatriates of the late nineteenth century is unknown, however, their motivations for leaving are well understood.20 Life in Syria during this time was characterised by oppressive governance, a dire economic situation and a profound lack of financial vision.21 The economic situation is resoundingly considered the main motivation for Syrian emigration.22 Interestingly, the family stories recorded by Trevor Batrouney, one of George Facoory’s great-­‐grandsons, cited cultural and religious persecution due to his family’s Christian faith as the principle motivation for their departure from Syria.23 However, there is reason to believe that his conclusion might be inaccurate, aside from the fact that it was drawn from secondary source retrospection. Despite the evidence of religious victimisation, there is a clear dearth of evidence to substantiate claims that this was the deciding factor in George Facoory’s decision of whether or not to emigrate.24 The fact that George was a draper is consistent with the broadly held view that  expatriations were primarily driven by economic  factors. After the Suez Canal was opened in 1869, Middle Eastern trade routes were irrevocably altered to the direct detriment of the silk industry, and drapers in Syria dealt extensively in silk.25 Combined with widespread silkworm disease and the destruction of mulberry trees at the start of the nineteenth century, the production of raw silk dropped dramatically and the cloth industry became heavily crippled.26 The multitude of stories about positive economic conditions outside of Syria, which came from successful early immigrants, undoubtedly influenced the decision of many Syrians to emigrate.27 Although it cannot be established beyond dispute, it stands to reason that economic conditions likely drove George Facoory, and the other members of his family to emigrate.

It can be deduced that George, Nezha and their daughter lived a comfortable life in New Zealand, where it is presumed they spent several years. Like many other Syrian emigrants of the time, financial stability and familial values remained important.28 In their ultimately successful application for a Certificate of Exemption from the Dictation Test, they were described as having sufficient wealth, with “no possibility of their becoming a burden on the State”.29 Alone, this fact could arguably justify good potential citizens. However, what seems to stand out most in their application is the link between George’s British naturalisation and his “exemplary character”.30 The Dictation Test was contrived to facilitate British immigration and in doing so forced a distinction between immigrants from Asia and immigrants from the Empire.31 In many  respects, being a British subject defined George as both a white European and a Christian.32  Although  part  of  the  “Asiatic  alien”  body  in  both  an  official   and societal context, the Syrians who migrated to Australia were somewhat unique.33 Under the broad umbrella of Christianity, many immigrants were capable of blending into society despite the fact that their usual denominations, Maronite, Orthodox, and Melkite, were uncommon in the Western World.34 The Christian Syrians and the Europeans also shared strong family ties, social norms and even dress codes, which further aided in their integration.35 Consequently, they were endowed with a distinct identity that elevated them above other ethnic groups.36 Despite the universal reach of the White Australia policy, Christian Syrians were not considered to pose the threats associated with their Asiatic counterparts and were thus typically accepted into society. 37

One of the fundamental aims of the White Australia policy was to embed cultural uniformity throughout Australia. This particular facet of the policy carried significant ramifications for many Syrian immigrants whose identities, given the pluralistic nature of their homeland, were closely defined by their religious denominations and cultural distinctions.38 It is argued that in order to become white and to be accepted in society, many were compelled to conceal or abandon defining traits, and to participate and indoctrinate themselves actively into Australian life.39 Early immigrants, who were typically poor, illiterate and neglectful of the educational opportunities available to them, had few choices but to conform to societal pressures.40 Assimilation essentially through coercion caused many Christian Syrians to abstain from their Eastern rites and congregate within Catholic or Protestant churches.41 Although Syrians were understood to associate within religious contexts, for many, this was the extent of their interaction with each other.42 It is worth noting that this was not solely due to the widespread desire for cultural regularity. Indeed, the power of ethnicity to unite people was often superseded by the power of religion to divide them.43 Nevertheless, the processes involved in assimilation often led to the substantial, albeit gradual, erosion of cultural distinctions between generations, a general observation that precipitated the claim that multiculturalism in Australia is, even today, a misnomer.44 The dilution of Christian Syrian culture, through social interaction, work and schooling is also said to have been profound.45 Very little information of the homeland was passed on and often within one new generation the Arabic language was all but lost. 46 The White Australia policy was underpinned by an engendered attitude of intolerance towards ostensibly threatening difference. As such, for many Christian Syrians, these experiences represented the normal process of migrating to Australia.

The history of George Facoory, his two sons and the rest of their family however appears to demonstrate that significant exceptions to the norm existed. Various degrees of assimilation did occur yet it was predominately intentional.47 For example, cricket became a noticeable part of their lives, and patriotic sentiment even compelled two family members to sign up to the Citizen’s Military Force.48 Yet the defining difference for the Facoory and Batrouney families seemed to be the capacity to retain much of their cultural heritage, at least for a significant period of time. The family’s perceived relationship to their homeland was said to be particularly strong, at least until the 1930s, because the first two generations in Australia had been born in Tripoli, Syria and were eager not to lose sight of their traditional roots.49 This may have helped instil a sense of belonging, which it is said was usually lost when immigrants were forced to negotiate tentatively between two incomplete worlds, a by-­‐product of life in White Australia.50 Such an interpretation also helps explain why the Batrouney brothers made it well known that they were born in Tripoli, rather than lying on official forms or concealing the importance of their lineage, as was commonly done.51 Adding to their exceptional nature, a handwritten letter by James Batrouney to the Collector of Customs seems to illustrate a significant degree of literacy.52 Further, all the Facoory children attended Rathdown Street State School, a sign that the family valued education. Unusually, whereas schools often enhanced assimilation, the immigrant children often bonded together in the face of occasional fights instigated by Australian children. 53 The behaviours apparently designed to persecute the foreign students indirectly fostered collective strength amongst them.

At an occupational level the experience was similar. James and John were exceptional. They were able to establish a profitable grocery store despite living in a society that condemned immigrant labour. At the start of the 1920s, less than 1.5% of the Australia’s Syrian population owned and operated their own produce stores.54 The brothers’ store developed into something of a cultural institution, facilitating integration into Melbourne whilst also withstanding the pressures of White Australia. By stocking Lebanese foodstuffs and providing jobs for family members, the store became a central meeting point for Syrians and created intergenerational links that helped foster a sense of community and ethnic identity.55 However, as a site of cultural retention, the store paled in comparison to the Saint Nicholas Antiochian Orthodox Church, which was established in 1931, after James Batrouney helped bring Syrian Reverend, Archimandrite Antonios to Australia.56 Melbourne’s Syrian Orthodox community was for many years without its own place of worship, split between the Greek Orthodox and Protestant churches, which were typically considered more tolerant of religious diversity.57 The creation of the Orthodox Church therefore had momentous ramifications for religious conservation. Not only did it allow the community to reclaim a seemingly lost part of their lives, but it also permitted the transmission of religious and cultural values across multiple generations. The Church was perceived as a very important establishment for the earlier generations in particular as it facilitated a link through religious services and social events such as local picnics and playing in cricket tournaments, which allowed individuals to oscillate between their home country and their host country.58 In a unique way, the Church demonstrated that neither culture needed to subsume the other, two values systems were able to coexist.

The formal end to the immigration process is citizenship.59 Accordingly, the decision of James Batrouney and his siblings to apply for naturalisation in the late 1920s and early 1930s is particularly salient. Above all, it corroborates the idea that Christian Syrians could reconcile their traditional values and their permanent lives within Australia. It is worth noting there was a clear distinction between entering Australia and becoming Australian. Legally recognised as “aboriginal natives of Asia,” even white Christian Syrians were prohibited from being naturalised until after 1920, and would not receive the vote for another five years.60 Applying after this period, the Batrouney’s were not subjected to such laws. However  this  certainly  did  not  mean  prejudicial practices were abolished. There is some evidence to suggest that when it came to citizenship, religion rather than whiteness was a better predictor of a  successful application. 61 To some degree this claim is validated by the Batrouneys’ applications. They make no mention of ethnicity, but repeatedly note religion and closely associate Christian faith with good character. 62 The archival documents also seem to demonstrate the importance of political preferences, of patriotism and Imperial loyalty to the Australian nationality. In the documents furnished for Farah Batrouney’s application for example, referees repeatedly stressed that he was a supporter of Empire, and sided with the British during the War.63 The fact that referees considered such information was relevant, given that it was not required, may suggest that the social definition of ‘Australian’ was functionally important. The mores of the time meant an incremental process of “osmosis and cultural blending” was required to conceive a socially recognised national identity.64 The law prevented citizenship from being granted to people of origins such as the Batrouney’s for more than two decades. Yet in analysing their history, it is seems apparent that this did not preclude the Batrouneys from preserving certain traditional values whilst also embracing their Australian home. The White Australia policy was established within a nationalist and racist framework, in a manner that unified the colonies and much of the Australian populace. Although it did not prevent the entry of Christian Syrians into Australia, it did have clear ramifications for their lives once they arrived.