Convict Lives.

The image of convict women depicted in Australian history has changed significantly over time.  Lt Ralph Clark from the First Fleet was quick to label women who came to Australia as convicts as “damned whores”, despite him making this judgement in regards to 192 women who were on board. In truth, it has been estimated by some historians that  of all women who were transported to Australia during this period in history, only perhaps one-fifth had been engaged in full or part-time prostitution prior to arrival, and of these, it can be hypothesised that a percentage did so to support their families who were living in dire poverty.

However, Lt Clark was correct in labelling these women as “damned”, for as Anne Summers argues, they “had little chance of having their status redefined… [and] the stereotype came to be applied to many other women in the colony who had not been transported”. This typecast was considered to be true, leading to many men, especially those in positions of power, to take advantage of this for their own gains. One settler wrote that “the youngest and handsomest of the women were selected and sent on board, by order of the master, the king’s ships… for the vilest purposes”. Supplementarily to this, many women were subjected to inhumane activities and humiliation at the hands of authority, including a punishment which forced women to wear iron collars which gave them “the appearance of ‘horned cattle’”.

Historian Deborah Oxley’s revisionist theory changes the earlier portrayal of convict women, instead focussing upon the extent to which they can be labelled as true ‘criminals’. She states that while “convict women were criminals, they were hardly members of professional gangs of wrongdoers… [they were] small-time crooks opportunistically engaging in property crimes… few engaged in violence for the sake of it”. However, despite this, she is not particularly empathetic to their treatment in the new settlement to the extent that Summers is, nor does she believe that they were totally wronged, forced to steal to support their starving families as some historians have theorised. Instead, she very logically states that “the colonies needed labour and were willing to pay for it through assisted passages… most of all, they needed women”, perhaps suggesting that some women were opportunistic, pointing to posters which “boldly declared the selection criteria of these assisted migrants”. Oxley’s labelling of convict women as ‘assisted migrants’ clearly juxtaposes the opinion given by Summers, highlighting the historiographical debate over the true nature of these new female settlers of Australia.

This was a frequently used visual for convict women, showing them as loose, immoral and criminal, deserving to be in a new society which was likened to "hell on earth". This image shows one woman as an alcoholic, the other as a whore which Lt Clark was quick to agree with; an opinion which lasted in popularity as this well known image did. (Source: http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an5577509-v)

Responses to Gold.

The Australian national identity was, at this point in history, still being consolidated; therefore a prosperous period of history was sure to bring ideals that would be included as part of the Australian ‘character’, and would indeed leave significant influence upon Australian history itself.

Perhaps the most visually obvious legacy which the gold rush period, particularly in Victoria, brought was the prosperity and wealth which it brought to the Victorian colony. It was the riches that diggers brought with them to the city which “fed the boom of ‘Marvellous Melbourne’”, money which originated from gold funded the erecting of the Exhibition Buildings (see image), the designs for which were based upon European cathedrals. This demonstrated to the world that Melbourne and Victoria was not only an affluent place, but that it had prestige and should be viewed as a powerful colony, or as Charles Fahey states, “by the 1870s Melbourne could rival the older Sydney as the premier city of Australia”.  Gold also built up the otherwise unknown country towns of Bendigo and Ballarat which after this became important rural cities. The significance of this is still seen with the Sovereign Hill village in Ballarat which all generations are proud of, a seemingly ‘compulsory’ excursion made by all Victorian school children at some stage, as well as being an important part of Victorian tourism.   

It was not only the history but the character of Australian citizens which was influenced during the gold rush period. The legacies of ‘mateship’, in particular, are thought to have emerged at this time, with men working in makeshift teams to achieve a ‘golden’ outcome. This term has been used many other times, particularly glorified during the World Wars where ANZACS prided themselves upon using ‘mateship’. Indeed the idiom is still today used by many men specifically as a ‘term of endearment’ to their friends and poignantly to those who they may not know, as a show of respect and amicability.  Along with this, some have said that a spirit of hard work and labour emerged during this time, although Hogan, in his 1880s account, highlighted that one of the main characteristics of the ‘coming Australian’ was that for “a grievous dislike of mental effort”.

It cannot be denied however, that the Australian concept of supporting the ‘underdog’ and a dislike for recognising authority was theorised during this time. Many, including historian Clare Wright, point to the Eureka Stockade movement as having “a profound impact on the establishment of a radical nationalist tradition in Australia… [it] has continued to act a as a lightning rod for nonconformist causes due to its association with dissent, free speech, human rights and fundamental rights”. Hence the gold rush period in Australian history was not only significant then, but is relevant today. This is clearly seen through the constant references to this movement made by unionist groups, as well as the Southern Cross being an important symbol of true Australia not only during the Stockade, but indeed today as an image which Australians use to express their nationalism. Therefore this movement became part of the foundation of the Australian identity, and a reason for why many Australians are proud of their nation and this era of their history.    

The Royal Exhibition Buildings in Melbourne showed the new found prosperity of Melbourne from the gold rush in Ballarat and Bendigo. The building is said to be designed after the Duomo cathedral in Florence, Italy which is also a structure symbolising power and prosperity (the Duomo has an entirely marble facade). This was erected to exhibit many cultural collections, most famously the Melbourne International Exhibition in 1880 which was a display of the wealth and culture of the Victorian colony.  (Source: http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/pictoria/gid/slv-pic-aab70162

The frontier or history wars.

The issue of the extent and nature of frontier violence between Aborigines and European settlers during early years has caused ‘intense debate’. This is because there are severe implications and complications that debating and hence resolving or coming to a conclusion can have. In this case, in examining the sketchy contemporary evidence which does exist, there is a risk that the decisions of past generations will be questioned, and this may lead to a full re-examination of other areas of interest in this era of Australian history.

Perhaps the two foremost leaders in this debate are Henry Reynolds and Keith Windschuttle. While both strongly maintain their prospective positions, a large concern with their debate is the level of speculation versus that that can be known for certain, due to the sheer lack of primary material from the period, particularly from the perspective of Aborigines involved. Windschuttle affirms that “it wasn’t a general police action to teach the Aborigines who was in control”, but the debate should instead focus upon the agendas that each historiographical group has, “their particular reasons for exaggerating this story”. Reynolds on the other hand, maintains that despite the imprecise details, “the evidence for extensive violence is massive… the debate in the 19^th century wasn’t whether Aborigines were being killed on the frontier, but rather whether it was justified or not”. He contends that part of the reason that there are such minimal resources on the issue is because of the fact that it was Aborigines who were being discriminated against, that “if the bodies had been white our histories would be heavy with their story”. 

Historian Gillian Cowlishaw argues that there is a tendency to group many individual events under the title of a “frontier war”, that “the term ‘frontier’ evokes images of battles and blood, victory and defeat”, while similarly Dirk Moses believes that “to conclude that Australia’s part is genocidal seems to criminalise it”. In this, Moses and Cowlishaw appear to be concerned that too many conclusions have been drawn in labelling this period of history as a ‘war’ which had ‘genocidal’ attempts to eradicate Aborigines.

Indeed a significant reason that this issue is so controversial is because it may force we Australians to reinterpret other parts of our history, such as the glorified perspective depicted in our folklore of the pioneer and bushranger, despite the fact that many actions against Aborigines were made by such people. In this, a debate over frontier wars can be seen to lead to a new Australian identity which is bloodstained by Aboriginal killings, and free from pioneers and bushrangers which now may be seen as controversial, which would mean a new character away from the hardworking yet radical spirit portrayed by such folk. Therefore, in having a simple debate in regards to ‘frontier war’, one cannot help but open a labyrinth of implications and problems. 




 

This early image of an aboriginal warrior painted by a European signifies why European settlers could have been so frightened of the natives. This could hence be seen as something of a justification of their actions in frontier violence. The artist has depicted the native man as savage, warlike, and surely foreign to Europeans with his war paint and indeed the unfamiliar language and culture that Aborigines had. (Source: http://search.slv.vic.gov.au/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?ct=display&doc=SLV_VOYAGER1647083&indx=9&fn=search&ct=search&vid=MAIN&indx=1&dum=true&vl(freeText0)=aboriginal%20warrior&srt=rank&vl(10247183UI0)=any&vl(1UI0)=contains&frbg=&tab=default_tab&vl(11480836UI1)=images&mode=Basic&scp.scps=scope%3A(SLV_VOYAGER)%2Cscope%3A(SLV_DIGITOOL)%2Cscope%3A(SLVPRIMO), Samuel Calvert, 1865). 



Europeans and the Australian Environment

When Europeans arrived and finally settled in Australia as a new British colony, they were confronted by an ‘alien’ and unfamiliar land which would have no doubt frightened them for reasons of shelter, safety and sustenance. There have been many interpretations as to their response and actions taken, including both criticism and inspiration.

Historian Gaynor contends that new European settlers were intimidated by their surrounds and sort comfort in their memories of home, in turn introducing European flora and fauna to replicate the homes that they had left. Some were for sensible and sustainable reasons, such as the introduction of sheep which became an excellent food source and export through the wool industry. However, this is also seen by Gaynor as a negative, through the vast environmental damage where “sheep would pulverise topsoil, decimate vegetation, and contribute to the extinction of medium-sized marsupials over much of semi-arid Australia”, although she does use some historiography in pointing out that there is much debate over the issue of whether the damage was immediate or only emerging as sheep numbers soared. On the other hand, a large majority of introduced species of flora and fauna was for the sake of pleasure, such as the decision to import several rabbits by Thomas Austin for the simple but inane reason of game hunting which would leave lasting devastation upon the natural environment. Gaynor seems to be fairly sympathetic to the new Australian citizens in their naïve and unethical approach to their surrounds, pointing out that while ‘axe wielding’ pioneers were clearing their surrounding environment, there was also some effort made to conserve the area, as she states, “in the name of science” with concerns that “the Australian flora and fauna were disappearing before they could be studied”. However, ultimately she concludes that not all of the damage made in the nineteenth century can be “ascribed to ignorance”, as there was criticism by contemporaries against the treatment of native flora and fauna even then.

Speck, conversely, is of the opinion that the settlers made sense of their new environment by embracing its natural beauty and incorporating its qualities of hardship and overcoming adversity into the emerging national identity. Artists and poets gradually moved away from their European style and created their own vision and view of the bush to show work which was both anthropologically accurate and aesthetically pleasing. As Speck phrases it, many “immersed themselves in the bush to paint it, then eulogised those bush qualities in their paintings and letters to each other… by describing the land and its people it also defined a nation” (see image). Many works showed not only the bush, but those who lived within it, exposing their lives and hardships, hence further exploring a new national character and spirit such as that of the hardworking pioneer. Artists of all genres came to understand their wild surroundings and unfamiliar setting by embracing it and realising its underlying beauty and potential.



Frederick McCubbin for example, came from a new school of art and interpretation known as the Heidelberg School which focussed upon living in the natural environment to accurately depict their surroundings with correct colours, shades and shapes to be shown.  This is shown in his three-tiered painting, The Pioneer,  showing a time sequence with the pioneer's life pondering their life to come in a new place, the couple tending the land with a promise of a new beginning, and then devestation with a death, whilst a development and cleared land can be seen peaking through in the background vista.
(Source: National Gallery of Victoria, http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/explore/ngv-collection/highlights?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkZ3d3cubmd2LnZpYy5nb3YuYXUlMkZjb2xhcHAlMkZwdWIlMkZhcnR3b3JrcyUyRjU5OTAlMkZkZXRhaWxzJmFsbD0x) 

Australia and the Enlightenment

Explorers Abel Tasman and James Cook both received recommendations to regard during their explorations of the ‘Great South Land’, Australia.

As historian Manning Clark contends, Tasman and those from the Dutch exploration who he labels “Protestants” considered their journey as a solely economical one, seeing Australia, as it became known as, as a land containing “many excellent and fertile regions… there [may be] found many rich mines of precious and other metals… so that it may be confidently expected that the expense and trouble that must be bestowed in the eventual discovery of so large a portion of the world, will be rewarded with certain fruits of material profit and immortal fame”. He argues however, that Cook and those of his fleet were men of the Enlightenment school of thought who relied upon science to explain the world, and who did not on a surface level communicate their voyage as being for colonising purposes but instead for anthropological reasons. Clark describes Cook as a “fine representative of the righteous and upright man not sustained by the consolations of religion”, an opinion which certainly glorifies such ‘Enlightened’ men, and the ‘hints’ by Lord Morton that he was asked to consider certainly assume this. This document however, is not as idealistic as it appears, later recommending Cook and his partners to present the natives with amicable signs in ‘trinkets’, the response to which “might be distinctly observed, before a second landing were attempted”. Clark’s distinction of explorers according to their religious beliefs is fairly poignant in the assessment of each recommendation’s main thesis.    

Both documents insinuate if not discuss the underlying reason for exploration in colonisation. Tasman was instructed to believe that “such lands [Great South Land] justly belong to the discoverer and first occupier [unless] it is a populated region of which the consent of the people or the king will be required”, while Morton’s “hints” to the Endeavour Expedition declare that “no European nation has the right to occupy any part of their country, or settle among them without their voluntary request”. These two distinct opinions came to little use however, as the Dutch had little desire to settle even the area they named ‘New Holland’ as they viewed it “a land of flies and sand and savages”. Conversely, many historians argue that Morton’s recommendations were disregarded, including Bruce Buchan who points to the ‘loophole’ of terra nullius meaning ‘no person’s land’ as superseding this and that there was a common belief that “ownership rested on occupying land by cultivation”, which Europeans did not deem that the Aborigines had undertaken. Buchan follows a more revisionist view of the Enlightenment men as not glorifying their position as opposed to what earlier historians such as Clark have tended to do. Alternatively, Buchan sees the European Enlightenment as having “fundamental connection between property and politics” which contradicts the often assumed view that ‘Enlightened’ men were more accepting of the rights of new peoples rather than being restrained by ancient religious belief.

The recommendations to Tasman and Cook respectively do both agree upon the importance of discovering this new “Great Southern Land” whether for trade and industry purposes or supposed anthropological reasons to better understand the world, while both have interest in colonisation as well.

This image of James Cook arriving in Botany Bay surveying the land. The artist shows Cook's hopes for the new land, as a place of new possibility and hope, directing men to where they should occupy the land. Poignantly, it also shows aboriginal warriors in the background, their stance almost in protest to the arrival and proposed cultivation and future ownership of the area. (Source: http://search.slv.vic.gov.au/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?ct=display&doc=SLV_VOYAGER1805240&indx=22&frbg=&dum=true&vl(1UI0)=contains&vid=MAIN&srt=rank&indx=21&tab=default_tab&vl(11480836UI1)=images&vl(10247183UI0)=any&ct=Next%20Page&scp.scps=scope%3A(SLV_VOYAGER)%2Cscope%3A(SLV_DIGITOOL)%2Cscope%3A(SLVPRIMO)&vl(freeText0)=james%20cook&fn=search&mode=Basic , E. Phillips Fox, c.a 1960).