Europeans and the Australian Environment

Upon the Europeans arrival in Australia, many were surprised by the environmental landscape. In explorer Thomas Livingstone Mitchell’s piece, he outlines the land as 'wild', with few resources available. Mitchell also notes the importance of the partnership between nature and Australia's native inhabitants. As a result, in order for the territory to be occupied by British settlers, it was Mitchell's opinion that the Aboriginal population must be driven out of Australia.

Furthermore, as previously mentioned, Australia’s environment was quite inhospitable and very few of the settlers had farming experience. Nature was also suffering as a result of the new inhabitants. Therefore, as John Hirst writes, the pioneer legend was created as a need to find ‘new national heroes and symbols’, ones that saved and successfully worked with the barren landscape of Australia. This legend celebrates perseverance and hard work, and individuals such as Banjo Paterson and Henry Lawson encompass the ‘Australian pioneer legend’, as courageous and resourceful bush-men. The pioneer legend greatly influenced the base of what was written about Australian history. Moreover, many were desperate to erase the ‘convict stain’ of Australia’s history and as a result, the pioneer legend was created.  Hirst contends that the pioneer legend history meant that historians could feasibly omit the convict origins in the Australia's history.
   
In addition, as Tom Stannage writes, including the pioneer legend as part of Australian history justifies the invasion of land that took place. Stannage believes that the term pioneer should be replaced with ‘land-taker’. Furthermore, this history fails to include women, convicts and Aborigines in its story. The Pioneer legend conveniently leaves out the fact that hundreds of Aborigines were enslaved, shot and killed by these so called ‘pioneer legends’. In addition, in reality, not only were British settlers causing unprecedented destruction to the Australian environment, but nature and native animals were also affected. Wild rabbits were imported in 1859 and as a result destroyed the land. Native animals such as kangaroos and emus were hunted as a part of a sporting pastime. 

The pioneer legend was created in order to establish a simple, local myth that falsely glorifies Australia's origins. European settlers were ill-equipped to handle Australia's environment and were instead destroying the environment and killing its native animals. 

Overlooking Australia's landscape, Dunlop range in 1886

Source: 'Pioneer photographer shows birth of Australia' by Penny McLintock

<http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/09/2298872.htm> 

Frontier or History Wars?

The nature of the settlement of the British in the 18^th century is widely debated amongst historians. A lack of historical evidence makes it extremely difficult to completely understand the nature and extent of Aboriginal resistance to European settlement. In addition, as there are limited recounts and reports from eye witnesses available on this topic, historians are left to rely on oral histories and testimonies from individuals who experienced these events first hand. These recounts can often be inaccurate, distorted or incomplete. Similarly, most histories are often recounted by British settlers and as a result, their accounts can be biased and tend to give a broad, falsely positive overview of settlement in Australia and the subsequent treatment of Aborigines.

Frontier violence causes intense debate between historians because incorrect recounts of frontier history may leave important aspects of Australian’s past unknown and undiscovered. For example, the Aboriginal population is an important part of Australia's history and this needs to be acknowledged appropriately and accordingly. As Europeans believed that occupying the land automatically assumed ownership, they arrived in Australia, in what they believed was a ‘peaceful and respectful’ manner. However, as later land rights court verdicts and national reconciliation decisions have otherwise stated, the British chose to occupy and dispossess land that already rightfully belonged to previous Aboriginal inhabitants. In addition, a  large number of Aboriginals were killed in order to gain land. Furthermore, as Bain Attwood writes, racial discrimination and violence that destroyed many Aboriginal communities subsequently occurred. He also states that many facts are often left out of Australian settlement history as preference towards a less 'problematic' settlement history.

Australia's identity lies with our history. It is vital to the inhabitants of this country that incorrect viewpoints on European settlement are eradicated and the reputation of Aborigines is restored, as well as their rightful place in Australia's history. 

 

Aborigines hunting and gathering 

Source: 'Australia's Convict Past' by Robert Coupe 

New Holland Publishers, Australia Pty Ltd (2002). 

Convict Lives

Many historians hold differing opinions about the convict origin of Australia. It is extremely difficult to make generalisations about convicts, as all of the information is based on the personal data collated about the convicts. Nevertheless, many historians have established their opinions of the individuals that populated Australia in the 18th century.

Our 'unusual colonial origins', as Deborah Oxley explains, causes many individuals to choose to deny our convict past. However, although the relationship between our origins and the convicts was negatively viewed for many years, this changed in the 20th century, when George Arnold Wood famously argued that the convicts were in fact, 'victims, more sinned against than sinning'. Wood believed that the convicts were outcasts, who were 'good people who lived in difficult times'. He stated that crime was inevitable in Britain at the time, as the criminal condition of society was created by '...the criminal lords and Bishops'. Other historians agree, believing that convicts were in fact, victims of injustice.

In contrast, Manning Clark contends that the convicts that settled in Australia were of a 'professional criminal class'. Approximately between a quarter and a third of the convicts were 2nd offenders and for this reason, Clark argues that these individuals were from the same 'criminal' class of society. He goes on to describe the convicts as lazy and non-industrious individuals who were proud of their criminal records and saw Australia as their 'sole chance at redemption'.

Convicts - First Australian Settlers 

by Augustus Earle

Source: Brisbane Times
<http:// images.brisbanetimes.com.au/ 2009/08/03/662060>

Primary source data from the indents of the Pyramus and the Hougoumont vessels demonstrate that many of the female convicts had committed minor crimes, such as theft. As many of the women convicted were domestic servants or wives, this serves as a reason to why the crimes committed are relatively minor. Conversely, the males convicted had committed major crimes such as murder and rape, which deserved harsher punishments. Nevertheless, it was vital that a proportion of female convicts were to be brought to Australia to ensure that there would not be a gender imbalance. Although they attempted to provide for a balance between sexes, by 1834, the ratio was one female to seven males. It is also important to note that many of the convicts were in fact, workers and convicts were drawn almost entirely from the working class. Data also shows that there was a high rate of literacy among convicts. This suggests that many of them were urban dwellers, rather than rural inhabitants, which explains their lack of farming skills and inability to tend the land as first expected.  

Although various opinions exist about Australia's convict origins, over the years the viewpoint of our convict heritage has shifted from a solely negative standpoint to one where many Australians view their past in a preferred, more positive light.