TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- A question for all u aussies!

A question for all u aussies!

Currently, I am doing part of my history module on Australia.

THe origins are rather complicated with a number of theories that historians have come up with about the occupation of Australi, and I was wandering what Australians today know about their origins?

I aint on the net much so I wont be able to reply instantly to any questions, but the debate surrounding penal settlement and the occupation of Australia has made me want to get a greater insight into what people today feel about the subject.

Many thanks in advance.

Matt

penal settlement eh?

let's see... white people came over and did some totally cruel shit like steal the black peoples' land and massacre them.

what's there to debate?

quote:

Originally posted by eRRaTiK let's see... white people came over and did some totally cruel shit like steal the black peoples' land and massacre them.

Didn't this happen in America, and Africa, and well, just about every place where the white people colonized?

the white people stole it fair and square!

i like to especially point out that not all cities were settled by convicts. my home town adelaide was settled by free settlers.

quote:

Originally posted by TCB i like to especially point out that not all cities were settled by convicts. my home town adelaide was settled by free settlers.

yeah and look how that turned out!

hey!! adelaide is a great city to live in!!! very beautiful place to live. dont have to deal with all that crap that comes with other citys of similar population. very little peak hour traffic, easy to get to work.

very relaxed place to live. people take adelaide for granted.

Hmmmmmm lets see.

Australia was first settled in 1788 in Sydney by the "First Fleet" from England. The First Fleet was mainly composed of convicts, although there were also many soldiers and government types, as well as some free settlers. Life was very hard for the settlers in the first few years as the conditions here were hot, dry and very different to the motherland England. They didn't have much food, and they struggled to plant crops more suited to a European climate. They had problems in finding a reliable water supply for a long time, until they discovered the "tank stream". Funnily enough, there is now a club in the city called "tank" which is right over the top of the now-dry river bed.


Aborigines

They basically screwed over the Aborigines very badly, and it is a dark spot on Australia's history. A major problem was that the Aborigines had no immunity to European diseases, so even a common cold was enough to kill them. Another big problem, that still exists today, is Alcohol. The Aborigines had never eoncountered it before, and had no natural tolerance. They also grew very fond of it.

A quick google search uncovered this:

quote:

England�s King George III had farewelled the First Fleet with firm instructions to learn about and acknowledge the Indigenous owners of the land. He wrote, �you are to endeavour by every possible means to open an intercourse with the natives, and to conciliate their affections... [you are also to] maintain friendly relations with the natives if possible and transmit to England such information of scientific interest as [you] might be able to gather�. This never eventuated and the arrival of the First Fleet and ailments such as smallpox, measles, colds and flu that came with it, were devastating to the local Aboriginal population. Within one year of settlement, half the Indigenous population had died in what is believed to have been an epidemic of smallpox. An English officer, William Bradley, wrote in his diary, "From the great number of dead Natives found in every part of the Harbour, it appears that the smallpox had made dreadful havock among them". Another wrote, "It was truly shocking to go around the coves of this harbour�where in the caves of rocks were to be seen men, women and children, lying dead". Within months of white settlement, local Aborigines were pushed to the fringe areas. Decimated local clans saw much local history, stories and ceremonies lost. But it also drew other Aboriginal people to Sydney from far away areas. This migration was prompted to aid their fellow people, see what the new settlement had to offer and was also due to the existence of arranged marriages.

I might add that while we were colonised by convicts at the time of the "first fleet", the vast majority of Australia's population today came from free migration, especially after WWII. Cities such as Melbourne, Adelaide, Canberra (our Capital city) and Perth were pretty much started by free settlers and don't really have much of the convict history that Sydney or Brisbane have.

we're not convicts anymore TiestoFanMatt. do your own fvcking homework.

good old wog immigration
carn the snowy river scheme!
we did settlement and first fleet stuff in year 8 or 9 history i think. can be interesting, reading about how a new country is started (sort of).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN we're not convicts anymore TiestoFanMatt. do your own fvcking homework.

ooooh hehehe touchy

basically the english werent the first to discover australia there were many others before the poms including portugese & dutch. The poms actually jumped on the land and explored it a bit better then claimed it as their own. They then thought this will be a great place to send criminals over as england is too small for them all. So they sent over some fleets of people got some towns up and running ect


As for aboriginals the g'ment doesnt think they have done anything wrong by them so its kinda swept under the carpet a bit. The 2nd pm deakin i think was responsible for creating the white australia policy. which was just a we rule u die kinda law.

quote:

Originally posted by A.J. Funnily enough, there is now a club in the city called "tank" which is right over the top of the now-dry river bed.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN we're not convicts anymore TiestoFanMatt. do your own fvcking homework.

So my expectation of the subject being a rather taboo subject is true .

I know about the facts of what happened, I am just suprised that allot of Australians (according to most materials) are very reluctant to accept that Australia was formed mainly by convicts sent to Australia because they were building up within England. Im interested to see if this is true, and it seems to some it is, and some it isn't.


eRRaTiK: "Whats there to debate?". Well some historians are now saying that Australia was colonized for the purpose of expansion of empire, and for economical benefits, due to the reports of Australia having a good amount of timber and flax, which would be useful for ship building. There is also evidence to suggest that strategically, Australia was ideally situated for an attack upon the spanish provinces, being on their blind side.

narcism: The Portugese and Dutch had both been to Australia. The Portugese actually laid a plate next to a tree that was representative for a "We were here".

The exploration of Australia wasn't that great. For example, the reports that were given to the government indicated the soil to be very rich and good for crops, yet this discovery was made at a diff time of the year than when Philip landed, which was middle of the Australian summer.

2nd pm deakin <--Iv not heard of that, what do you mean?

Well now the majority of the populations origins relate back to sumwhere in asia.

quote:

Originally posted by TiestoFanMatt 2nd pm deakin <--Iv not heard of that, what do you mean?

Our second Prime Minister, Alfred Deakin.

I think the reason we shy away from our convict heritage, is that it is probably blown well out of proportion. If you actually look at numbers, I have no doubt whatsoever that the number of convicts is far less than the number of free settlers that came to Australia (say, in the first 50 or 100 years). So we don't like it, because its not really correct, because you are characterising us on what I'm sure would be a small minority.

haha this is funny i just accepted we were all convicts

quote:

Originally posted by TiestoFanMatt So my expectation of the subject being a rather taboo subject is true .

oh. it fvcking hurts.
it aint a taboo subject. i just resent lazy fvckers like your good self getting other ppl to do their thinking for them. i might have been a terrible student but at least i did all my own thinking

far from it being taboo i simply think australia's history to be unbelievably boring. snooze for pkc, coz pkc really doesnt care.

quote:

Originally posted by TiestoFanMatt are very reluctant to accept that Australia was formed mainly by convicts sent to Australia because they were building up within England. Im interested to see if this is true, and it seems to some it is, and some it isn't.

firstly, its coz its not entirely true. there were many reasons why Oz was chosen to be the next big thing in english colonialsm. never underestimate the notion(s) of empire building that also played a part in colonisation.

quote:

Originally posted by TiestoFanMatt Well some historians are now saying that Australia was colonized for the purpose of expansion of empire, and for economical benefits, due to the reports of Australia having a good amount of timber and flax, which would be useful for ship building. There is also evidence to suggest that strategically, Australia was ideally situated for an attack upon the spanish provinces, being on their blind side.

see! there you go. some thought. i can see youve been reading similar books to my good self several years ago

and i had to listen to fvcking house tnite. wheres the fvcking justice?

pkcRAISTLIN


oh. it fvcking hurts.<--

it aint a taboo subject. i just resent lazy fvckers like your good self getting other ppl to do their thinking for them. i might have been a terrible student but at least i did all my own thinking

Lazy fvuckers? Haha I just wanted to know what you all thought, soon as my lecturer seems to believe the mention of convict is recieved in a rather hostile way when discussion Australian roots.

far from it being taboo i simply think australia's history to be unbelievably boring. snooze for pkc, coz pkc really doesnt care. <-- Oh well difference of opinion.

firstly, its coz its not entirely true. there were many reasons why Oz was chosen to be the next big thing in english colonialsm. never underestimate the notion(s) of empire building that also played a part in colonisation.

<---Well I disagree, there is to me enough evidence to suggest otherwise.I agree that what you are talking about did happen, but it was not that reason why Britain decided to set sail with a ship full of convicts (or felons).

see! there you go. some thought. i can see youve been reading similar books to my good self several years ago < Thanks, I like to try and get a objective look upon the subject

and i had to listen to fvcking house tnite. wheres the fvcking justice? <--- There is none, I feel sorry for u

quote:

Originally posted by TiestoFanMatt So my expectation of the subject being a rather taboo subject is true .

This isn't true. Most Australians would be more than happy to claim convict ancestry. In fact if the number who claim it are right, it would have needed every ship in the world to get the convicts here. !!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.