From Henry Parkes to Geoffrey Blainey: A Stronger or Persistent Strain of 'White Australia' Takao Fujikawa In the mid 1980s Geoffrey Blainey's criticism of Asian immigration touched off a flood of immigration debates. Although his views were repudiated by major parties, revisionist interpretation of Australian society and history has never died out. The criticism of 'black armband' view of history and 'history wars' followed suit. Hansonism was repudiated, but was finally embraced into mainstream politics as stringent border controls and changed meaning of multiculturalism. It is easy to see a great divide between Keith Windschuttle and 'our' history and attribute resurrected 'racism' to him. Or attribute him to resurrected 'racism'. However, why is 'racism' so persistent? It may be because racism or so called colour-blind racism, a milder but persistent strain of racism has always been part of modern democratic society. 'The great divide' might be more of ideological rather than of real nature. Blainey quite clearly refutes a type of racism by his definition. By doing so he distances himself from the Social Darwinist tradition of 'White Australia'. Yet was history of 'White Australia' so white and so racist that everyone can distance oneself from it? In this paper I want to trace a persistent strain of 'White Australia' into the nineteenth century by analyzing the statements by Henry Parkes when such phrase hardly existed.