Bizarre... I have read many different historical accounts and modern descriptions of Australia, in several languages, yet alarmingly most of them are quite wrong and display gross stereotypes or factoids taken well and truly beyond reason.
Some date from when Australia was not as important globally as it is today, and appear as though less effort to thoroughly check true facts was made.
Other, more modern accounts, seem to expand largely mythologized ideas about Australia.
Strange stories about Australia being a racist nation, in some part a gross misrepresentation of both true and fictional historical events, ie, the emerging myth about any sort of organized armed movement to intentionally displace aboriginals. Often, the (sometimes unofficial) class system is reversed or ignored, and British or Colonial government decisions are blamed on settlers. Not to mention the large ignorance of Australias wartime actions, innacurrate observations about Crown influence in modern eras, and one of the largest myths - often even invoked by uninformed young Australians, too - that Australia, as a whole, was founded as a penal colony, or the bizarre myth that most or all Australians are descended from criminal convicts. Admittedly one Japanese article on Australia was accurate in stating that the convicts were guilty of misdemeanors, most of which would not qualify as even that today.
Though the same article still got the numbers wrong about settlers, who eventually outnumbered the "criminal" convict descendents. Which caused a little resentment with those descendents, actually. Regardless, the convict presence was of benefit and detriment; convicts were "real people", not ineffectual inheritors of good fortune. But, it also caused a faster rise of a class system, even if sometimes unofficial, than in other colonial regions.
Settler migration brought many skilled workers, too.
Also often ignored are the reasons behind many government actions, the unpopularity of the actions with the populace, and why certain actions seem to have been against the British colonial interests.
Much of this can be attributed to "multimedia education", in other words, movies, fiction and the tourism industry. It's also alarming how many Australian historians are very wrong - though not surprising, given the "history wars" being waged.
Just to shed light on a few myths, very, very briefly;
Australia was not intended as a penal colony until after America's independence. Sydney was then established as a penal colony, and the presence of aboriginals came as a surprise, with the belief that Australia was unpopulated. The convicts had no specific opinions on aboriginals, true conflict was very minor, about half instigated by semi-displaced aboriginals, half started by European settlers close to or in the disputed regions, often hunting grounds important to the aboriginals. Many died from disease, and tribes weakened by disease were lost by competition for land. Tasmania has often been put out of proportion by this, people often forgetting that - as an island - disease was more destructive, competition more vital. Though there were several genuine incidents, several instigated by religious groups and class-based governments, most widely known incidents are romanticized.
The White Australia policy originated with labour disputes against Chinese immigrants, who worked for less, and a government still "recovering" from de facto class system, "ran with it". They did not want to be just another British colony; they wanted to *be* British, which - in the years the European world had that stupid "White mans burden" idea, meant they had to be populated with "British". If you'll read British accounts of colony leaders, you may see why that was.
This policy was seen in a relatively positive light by labour groups, was quite unpopular with other groups, but most, even if they didn't like the idea, didn't care. They were white, so it wasn't their problem. Many average Australians were concerned about the various Asian nation troubles at the time, too, and for that reason it held. Most resistance to the policy came from people who disliked the idea that dark-skinned races would also be barred; largely due to the class/de facto class system, many Australians were in the same position as darker races, and shared a common interest, or either did not have the "luxury" of "hasty racism".
Though that largely applied to "civilized" darker races. Actually, it's interesting to note the views of the old government on African-American soldiers posted in Australia, who were often welcomed by Australian citizens mor enthusiastically than the "over paid, over sexes, over here" white counterparts.
Tasmania was also a convict settlements. Most other cities were founded by free settlers but, except for SA, took convicts. Conservative estimates suggest that less than 10% of the European population are convict descendents.
Lastly, there are several Australian accents, the Outback is not all that Australia is, and, despite peoples assumption that the aboriginal population has been "decimated" by settlement, perhaps by seeing that aboriginals only make up 2% of the population, Aboriginal population is actually, now, at it's highest level ever, and, despite growing popular belief, most modern issues with Aboriginals a culturally related, largely isolated within the Northern Territory. That last one is not from research, but experience. I'm originally from NT, and my father was pretty important in addressing those issues, which are not likely to go away any time soon, largely thanks to culture shock and cultural conflict.
There. Done. Questions?
_________________
Oh, well, fancy that! Isn't that neat, eh?
10 Dec 2008, 7:58 am
