WEEK 6: Responses to Gold

What anxieties did the Gold-Rushes inspire?

The discovery of gold in the early 1950s would prove to have a major impact on Australian society. The discovery of vast surface alluvial deposits in Victoria sparked a massive boom in migration and the construction of infrastructure. Within ten years the population of Australia nearly tripled; cities grew in size and new towns were established. Victoria’s population and wealth would eventually overtake that of New South Wales. Whilst the gold-rush would eventually result in significant progress in the colonies, the massive changes in society and culture that resulted were also a source of fear and anxieties.

The discovery of gold created a society which envisioned the possibility that any man willing to work had his chances of finding fortune on the gold-fields. Gold-fever saw waves of men putting down the tools of their usual trade and heading to the goldfields in the hope of striking riches. With many of the nation’s farmers walking off the land, David Goodman’s article explains that the area of cultivated farm land fell by a dramatic 40 percent in the first few years. Anxiety grew as the colonies began to rely heavily on the imported of food while their economy became heavily entwined in the risky mining of gold.

It wasn’t only the men in the colonies who were struck down with this gold-fever. News of Victoria’s alluvial wealth soon spread worldwide and with the conclusion of the Californian gold-rush, influxes of migrant miners were soon heading to Australia. One group was of particular concern: the Chinese. By the mid to late 1850s, Chinese miners began to emerge on the goldfields in large numbers. Bringing with them few women, and the much feared opium, racial antagonism soon developed. The European settlers feared the demoralising effect that this ‘Yellow Peril’ might have on society. In 1957 A petition regarding this ‘influx of the Chinese’, described the Chinese as “barbarians”; a “repulsive race” bound to bring about the “total subvertion of all ‘law’ and ‘order’”. The fear of the Chinese which was evident in this period did not subside, and a ten pound tax was eventually imposed upon arriving Chinese miners during – which in turn paved the first foundations for the 1910 Immigration Restriction Act.

Another cause for concern was that the gold-fields were a highly male dominated society. While there were some women present on the gold-fields, residing in the likes on Canvas Town, this only made up about one sixth of the population. It was feared that without female influence the moral character of this society was in peril.


Women corrupted by opium
The Chinese miners brought few women with them to the gold-fields. With instances of wife desertion increasing it was feared that the Chinese miners would seduce European women and corrupt society with their opium. The fear of this degradation of society by the Chinese is illustrated in the image above, with the women having seduced into smoking opium.

Image credits: 'Delightful dissipation. -the ladies’ opium-smoking club' from Police News, at http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/.../, accessed 27 August, 2009

WEEK 5: Frontier or History Wars

What was it about the nature of frontier conflict that led historians to overlook it for so long?


Debate surrounding the nature of frontier conflict is a relatively new phenomenon. Traditionally historians paid little attention to Aboriginal resistance and frontier violence. Such historiography has been highly political in nature and the manner in which we choose to remember these events has been influenced by how we have chosen to view the nature of Australia’s foundation. A history of violence does not make a very appealing national story and is a past many people have chosen to ignore or simply forget. In fact, part of the nature of frontier conflict made it easy to overlook.

Traditional Aboriginal culture does not contain a written language. Subsequently written records of indigenous histories have only existed since the time of British settlement, recorded from the perspective on the colonisers. These oral histories were easy to dismiss as inaccurate and to ignore the value and significance of. Historians had long preferred to use written primary sources as evidence, meaning Aboriginal perspective was long absent from history. To further compound this problem, prior to British settlers arriving in Australia in 1788, it is estimated that there may have about 250 different Aboriginal languages. In the years following the white colonisation of Australia many of these languages disappeared, and with them undoubtedly countless indigenous histories and stories.

It wasn’t only the nature of the Aboriginal evidence of frontier violence that causes problems when investigating this conflict, there are also significant issues with the evidence from the Europeans. As the Aboriginals were legally citizens of the Crown, the killing of indigenous peoples was considered as murder and punishable by death. As such, instances of frontier violence were often ignore, covered up or recorded inaccurately. Since violence was often between individual landholders it is possible many events simply were not recorded.

One of the first to investigate the Aboriginal response to white settlement was historian Henry Reynolds with his renowned work The Other Side of the Frontier in 1981. Reynolds’ work was ground breaking, considering the situation not just of the Europeans, but also that of the indigenous population. He examined all evidence available, including oral histories and proposed answers to questions that had rarely been considered in the past. Notably, Reynolds estimated a frontier death toll of 20,000 Aboriginal victims. Studies of frontier violence have since been a trend in historiography, with Reynolds receiving both praise for his ideas, and much criticism. It has however largely open up the issue for debate.

Retaliation for killing livestock

Experiences on the frontier and Aboriginal resistance varied. The killing or theft of livestock by the indigenous people was commonly reported. The above illustration depicts an Aboriginal group being persecuted and killed mercilessly - “like dogs” - in retaliation for spearing the settlers’ sheep.

Image credits: '...the revenge of the Whites, as they are hunted down and shot like dogs' at http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/index.html, accessed 27 August, 2009

A different experience of frontier violence

The above illustration shows a different encounter on the frontier, conflict between both the Europeans and the Aboriginals. In particular, note the house on fire in the background -pressumably the result of Aboriginal resistance.

Image credits: 'A Deadly Encounter' at http://www.theage.com.au/.../06/30/1119724752099.html, accessed 24 August, 2009

WEEK 4: Convict Lives

How ‘free’ was convict society? Were convicts slaves?

The British penal colonies of Australia relied heavily upon a system of punitive labour. Convicts labour was not only seen as an important element in the rehabilitation of the criminal, but also provided the colonies with its first workforce. While such harsh labour was arguably slave-like, convicts were significantly better of than ordinary slaves.

As John Hirst explains in the readings, “outwardly similar physical conditions can have radically different social meanings.” Despite their laborious punishment and the slave-like manner in which they were worked, unlike slaves, these penal workers were still perceived as human in a legal sense. Convicts were not owned by there masters and still retained basic legal rights. A master required court approval before he could lash his workers in punishment. Children of convicts were born free for having not committed a crime themselves – children of slaves however were born to suffer the same degradation of their parents. Convicts were emancipated after completing their sentence and could look forward to the future as a free man.

While convicts may have experienced greater freedom in the Australian colonies than these slaves, convicts however were not ‘free’; they were in fact still prisoners. Transportation found convicts on an eight month journey across the oceans before landing in the penal colonies of Australia. Mostly there was no need for the fences and walls or prison uniforms. In Australia the continent itself was the prison, an ‘open air gaol’ which even without walls or bars was impossible to escape. Even after emancipation most would never be able to leave and return to the lives they had known back in England.

Despite this, I would like to argue that convicts faired much better off in the new colonies, than the existence they may have had in back in England. Many convicts had in fact received the death sentence for their crimes, which may have been carried out if it were not instead commuted to transportation. On the other hand, those who survived the deplorable conditions may have still been detained in the overcrowded gaols or prison hulks which plagued the Motherland.

In the colonies a future of freedom was an ever possible reality. Convicts could be released from there sentences early for good behaviour and after completing their sentences, the newly emancipated were free to start a new livelihood and exist freely in society. Emancipists were able to work and own land without discrimination, sharing the same legal rights as the free settlers in the colonies.



Conditions inside Prison Hulks
Prison Hulks were an early solution to overcrowding in England’s prisons. Convicts were housed in these cramped and often unsanitary floating prisons, rife with disease. As seen in the picture above, many even perished. Many of the prisoners on the hulks would be eventually transported to Australia. It can be argued that the most of the Australian convicts were considerably better off than in overcrowded and unsanitary hulks, often rife with disease.


Image credits: 'Death of a Convict on the Hulk' at www.nla.gov.au/.../2003/mar03/article5.html, accessed 28 August 2009.

WEEK 3: Europeans and the Australian Environment

How does Hancock’s argument differ from Flannery’s?

The standard view of environmental history during the early colonial period is that of settlers wrecking havoc upon their new environment. It is often suggested that this environmental damage resulted from the colonists ignorance, and their attempts to change the landscape to better suit their European preferences.

The Australian environment suffered greatly due to the settlers’ misunderstanding of their new environment. Many natural resources were believed to be superabundant, near limitless and were subsequently destroyed. Trees were felled and Australia’s native forests quickly disappeared, making way for European-like farmlands.

With the publication of his Australia in 1930, W.K Hancock famous declared that “the invaders hated trees”, and discussed the damage the colonisers had impacted upon the soil as a result. Hancock describes these ‘invaders’ and their civilization as, an “onrush of a horde [which] has been devastating”. He describes the terrible impact this had upon the Aborigines; the devastation brought on by the introduction of the rabbit, and the effects of extensive “tree-murder”. However, while acknowledging the damaged caused by the settlers, Hancock goes on to express his faith that this damage may be reversed in the future. He also suggests that as the colonist learned to adapt better to the Australian land they did, in the end enrich the soil, making the use of it far more profitable.

While many of the same themes take precedent in both the articles, Hancock earlier investigation is far more optimistic about the nature of the damage done, than Flannery’s account.

Decades later in 1994, like Hancock, Timothy Flannery also blames the settlers’ naivety for much of the damage they inflicted upon the land – but more so their attempts to manipulate it. Flannery, similarly to Hancock, discusses the damage caused to the environment by the destruction of trees and the introduction of foreign animals. He suggests that the settlers misunderstood their new ecosystem and instead acted according to the principles of their European environment. Initially, the landscape was perceived by the colonists in a positive light, in one record described much like the “gentleman’s park[s]” of Britain. With this framework, settlement began by seeing the colonists’ attempts to make Australia adapt to them as they tried to create an environment resembling that of their homeland. In their attempt to manipulate the environment, trees were felled to make way for the farm land they were accustomed to and noxious animals were introduced to remind them of their homeland. Without an understanding of the Australian ecosystem and its weather, periods of drought initially devastated the colonists, but irreparable damage had already been done to the environment.

Ringbarking a massive tree
During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, widespread ringbarking to make way for farm land resulted in the native forests being destroyed on a massive scale. Most of this timber was wasted. As Flannery’s article explains, this destroyed timber would have been worth millions of dollars more than the dairy industry it was destroyed to accommodate. Even giant trees like the one picture above which would today be considered natural treasures, were still destroyed indiscriminately.

Image credits: 'The carcass of a giant Mountain Ash', at http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/.../trees/tree17m.htm, accessed 25 August 2009.

WEEK 2: Outpost of Empire

What are the competing arguments about the foundations of Australia?

The late eighteenth century saw British prisons overcrowded and in total disarray. With the loss of its American outlets, Britain no longer had a colony to which it could send excess convicts. The strict legal system during this period and arguably, a culture of crime in the cities had left the nation’s existing penal system overflowing. Exhausted war ships that were unfit for naval service, became Prison Hulks which served as a temporary solution. Soon, this too would soon prove as inadequate, and the issue of what to do with the outpouring of convicts became a national problem. A convict settlement in Australia became a possible solution.

On May 13 1787, the 11 ships of the First Fleet set sail from Great Britain and began the transportation of convicts to Australia. However, transporting convicts literally half way across the world was tediously slow and the cost of supporting the new colonies was a massive financial burden. Therefore it would seem that other factors must have come into play whilst making this decision – especially considering that places existed closer to home where it may have been possible to send convicts.

In addition to requiring an outpost for its criminals, part of the attraction to Australia as the site of a new colony, may have been the perception that the land held vast quantities of natural resources – especially those with particular value to the Britain.

Flax and pine trees were of particular interest: flax, a necessary component of canvas sails, and tall pine trees to be fashioned into mast, were invaluable to the British Naval forces. Britain did not have ready access to these materials in their existing colonies and therefore having an easy source of high quality goods was perceived as pivotal towards the goal of commanding the seas and creating a global empire. Australia also opened up possible new trade routes by provided locations for ports on long journeys – particularly useful during periods of war. It would also benefit the empire and reestablished Britain’s image as one of the world great imperial nations; despite their relatively recent loss of the Americas.

English Man of War c.1750
Flax and mast trees were of pivotal importance to Britain due to there use as essential components for its naval fleet, such as in the image above, a conceptual design for a new First Rate battleship, envisioned to have at least 90 guns. While the exact model was never built, similar ships were achieved. Britain did not have a ready source of these resources in it existing colonies, and as such the Australian colonies were thought to be a perfect source for the materials to build such ships.

Image credits: 'A First Rate Man of War with its Mast and Riggings', at http://www.ahrtp.com/HallofFameOnline3/ManofWar.htm, accessed August 25 2009