Responses to Gold

The discovery of gold in Australia had a significant impact upon the way in which Australians saw the future, in terms of both the possibilities and anxieties that it offered. It also shaped the way in which Australians began to see themselves and their involvement in political issues, as well as the way reacted to the influx of immigrants who came to work the mines, particularly the Chinese. 

The Gold Rush throughout Australia, particularly in the large mines of Victoria in the mid 19^th century, changed the outlook of the future for those whom were involved in the mining and who lived in the nearby cities such as Melbourne, both suggesting an opportunity for a more successful future for some, and posing a threat to the morality and structure of society to others. Gold offered an opportunity for working class people, both Australians and immigrants, to greatly improve their wealth and social standing in society by making a lucky discovery. While this could be seen as a positive for working people, allowing for increased wealth and a chance to move up the social ladder, it also acted as a threat to the position of members already a part of the aristocratic upper tears of society. Furthermore, as those who worked on the mines were predominantly men, many of whom were away from their families, there was a concern that this would denigrate the morality of these men, who could waste their gold findings money on drink and prostitutes, and who did not have the civilising presence of women. 

The discovery of gold also impacted upon the way in which Australians saw immigrants from outside of the empire, as well as their own position in the political landscape. As Clare Wright states, whether the conditions of high licence fees and lack of input that miners faced prior to the Eureka Stockade acted as an accelerator or a catalyst, they defiantly contributed to nationalist sentiment and a desire to gain representation in parliament, reflected in demands such as the removal of land requirements for involvement, shorter sittings of parliament and for politicians to be paid, all allowing the average working man to contribute to the shaping of their nation. Additionally, the gold rush also saw a mass influx of immigration to Australia, including a large number of Chinese. While there appeared to be little opposition to those from other parts of the Empire mining gold, Russell Ward suggests that the “Old Hands” had little respect for the “New Chums”, due to the concern that they would take jobs and decrease the living standards of some Australians, as they were willing to work for less money, in addition to some migrants bringing with them foreign diseases such as small pox. This is demonstrated in riots such as that at Buckland field in Victoria in 1857, in addition to the general violence and assault that occurred, such as to the European women who was married to a Chinaman, and her children, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on the 30^th June 1861 during the Lambing Flat Riots.

An image of a gold mining community in Victoria, demonstrating both the multitudes that saw hope in the prospect of gold, and the largely settlements that caused for concern for the morality of its citizens.

"Gold digging in Victoria. From a photograph of a New Rush", 1862, Samuel Calvert.

http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an10267866-50

Frontier or History Wars

Frontier conflict between indigenous Australians and early Australian settlers is something that has been overlooked by historians until recently, and even still debate arises over the extent to which it occurred. While this was an issue that has a large impact upon the history of our nation, and most can agree there was some form or degree of conflict, the extent to which we can accurately understand these events is limited, due to historiography issues. 

The issue of frontier conflict is one that has been repeatedly overlooked by historians in accounts of early Australia, which could be the result of multiple factors. One of these factors may have been the limited information that historians had to account for these events, making it difficult to create an accurate depiction of the events, and hence it being easier and less controversial to omit these events.Some of the relevant information was partial or missing, for example the records of the Queensland Native Police from 1859, which left people to draw their own conclusions about events. There was also the problem of only non traditional sources being available in some cases. While the new Australians recorded their interpretation of events in mediums such as newspapers and journals, much of the indigenous perspective was passed down verbally, and relied heavily upon memory, making it unclear how credible these accounts could  be. This may have resulted in a European dominated memory of our history, without the inclusion of what they did not want to be remembered. Furthermore, the bias of some of these sources is unclear. As Keith Windshuttle and Henry Reynolds both concede, there may have been political or personal reasons for making claims that the bias was not as bad, or alternatively, worse, then what it actually was, for example, how strictly can we interpret a comment made in parliament?

Another reason why these events were left out of earlier histories could have been because of the controversy that arises from them, due to the way in which these events challenge the pioneer legend, and because of the questions it raises as to current indigenous issues. As Reynolds writes in his “The other side of the Frontier”, the acknowledgement of this conflict and the perspective of the other side taints both the pioneer legend and the concept of a clean federation, by both bringing into question the morality and respectfulness of the actions of our founding “heroes”, and by suggesting that in the first 70 years of settlement in Queensland almost 10,000 indigenous people were killed in conflict with white Australians, and almost 20,000 were killed in the years prior to federation. Additionally, this issue has proved to be controversial for the future of Australian inter-cultural relations, even now that it is being discussed. Bain Attwood and S.G. Foster claim that a lack of moral engagement and acknowledgement of the past will result in an “us” and “them” mentality today. Not acknowledging the past and moving forward accordingly impact upon the development, progress and land ownership rights of indigenous people.

This image shows an example of the frontier conflict, with Indigenous people making an attack of the hut of a settler, while European Australians  fire guns towards them.

"Attack on a settler's hut", 1870, James Bonwick. 

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/190981?lookfor=frontier%20conflict%20{pi:nla.pic*}&offset=2&max=4

The Australian Environment

When the first Australians came to our shores the environment they faced was unlike anything they had known in England. With little knowledge of the Australian eco system, these settlers were having a substantial impact upon the landscape, possibly due to this lack of understanding, or alternatively a focus on short term financial incentives. Despite this, however, it is indicated that there was some admiration for the land, and hope for it to be successfully cultivated.

Many of the convicts that were transported to Australia came from urban areas, and had little experience in farming, but even if they had, the landscape, flora and fauna they were faced with was vastly different from what had been encountered in Europe. Catherine Speck suggests that during early settlement there was a great effort to gain understanding of plants and animals through diagrams and natural histories. It is possible, however, that although some were learning about individual species, it was too early to have formed an understanding of the echo system as a whole, and the full impacts of actions towards the land. Similarly, Mitchell writes in 1848, that the new colonies, by limiting recourses and not understanding the land, were contributing towards what would surely be extirpation of the indigenous community. As Andrea Gaynor contends, however, the land was often used beyond its limits, allowed by payment of an annual grazing fee. Additionally, the introduction and farming of sheep, which greatly spread across the continent, had irreversible damage on the pastures, their hooves not suited to the new environment, acting like “jackhammers”. This suggests that not only a lack of knowledge, but a focus on short term material goals rather than long term environmentally sustainable ones had an impact on the changing Australian continent.

Not all opinions of the land were negative, however, with W.C Wentworth writing praises of the beautiful landscape in his poem “Australasia” (1823), and suggesting it was worthy of being “a new Britannia in another world”. Similarly, the first editorial posted in the Sydney Morning Herald states that native born Australians shall successfully cultivate the land in the name of Britain, and a section of land for cattle would, in 20 years time, be of more valuable than a fifty gun frigate.

The Australian landscape was both something of great mystery and hope to the new Australians of the early 19^th century. While there was a great impact on the landscape from the introduction of new species and a lack of understanding of the land, there was also great hope for land that would be fertile, and would one day represent a New Britain.  

The "New Britannia" Australian Landscape Wentworth wrote about in his poem, with indigenous people and a kangaroo in the foreground, both of which were at risk of extinction due to the changing landscape with the arrival of colonists.

 

"Australian landscape, Aboriginies and kangaroo in foreground", 1828, E.C Close

http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an4563834-s4

Outpost of Empire

What reasons did Britain have to establish a colony in Australia? Was it the need of a dumping ground for criminals? Or was it something more strategic that resulted in our foundation?

Many primary sources from the mid to late 18^th century refer to the increase in crime, as does Henry Fielding’s 1751 inquiry in London, and the overcrowding that this resulted in for prisons, cited by John Howard in 1777.England’s harsh penal system at the time meant that there were more criminals serving sentences then places to house them. The ideal solution to this problem seemed to be to “establish a colony of convicted felons in any distant parts of the globe…escape might be difficult…they might be enabled to maintain themselves”, as discussed in a report to the House of Commons by Joseph Banks in 1779. As America was no longer a viable option, Australia without any other colonies to object such as in Canada, and with seemingly more favourable conditions then areas such as the West Indies, seemed like a good option. It is important to take into account, however, the great expense of sending not only criminals, but officers, sailors and their families on a seven month journey, which raises the question, was there another aspect to this decision that was more beneficial for the empire? It is possible that using Australia as a place to house criminals was a means to access recourses while improving the trade and pride of the empire, things surely taken into account in such a decision.

Geoffrey Blainey’s “Tyranny of Distance”, however, suggests colonisation of Australia was thought to provide access to both flax and pine trees, both locally and on nearby Norfolk Island, essential for the building of ships, providing materials essential to the growth of the empire. Additionally, the expansion into this new region of the world may have been a strategic move for the empire by allowing for a new port, both allowing naval advantage of a place for boats to refuel, and expanding trade routes with easier access to Asian markets and whaling. It seems logical that in deciding to transport convicts to Australia, other factors such as advantages this would provide for the empire would have been taken into account, and hence it seems as though in was a combination of all of these reasons that resulted in the foundation of Australia. 

An image drawn in aproximatly 1790 of a flax plant found on Norfolk Island. This plant was potentially adventagous to the empire, and its abundance may have been a reason for the commencement of transportation to Australia.

  "Birds & flowers of New South Wales drwan on the spot in 1988,'89 & '90",  John Hunter

http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an3187030

Convict Lives

There is much debate over the nature, freedom and conditions of convicts that were transported to Australia from 1788 until 1868. From analysis of primary and secondary sources, we can see that while convicts may have been harshly sentenced, they were given a degree of opportunity and freedom after the completion of their sentences.

Were convicts, as G.A. Woods described them, village Hampdens? Or were they rather a professional criminal class, as implied by Manning Clark? To address this question it is important to understand that those transported cannot be classed into a single category, as they were both men and women from all ages and from across the entire empire, not just from Britain, who had preformed a variety of crimes, ranging from stealing cotton to wilful murder. Clark states that between 1/4 to 1/3 of convicts with the relevant recorded data were repeat offenders, and many were from urban areas, relying greatly on anecdotal evidence that the opinion of Britain’s of the time was that these individuals perused crime as their occupation, making them the "offscourings of mankind". Alternatively, however, Woods suggests that rather than the convicts that were transported being inherently bad, they were victims of both economic exploitation and a particularly harsh, unjust legal system. This is an opinion that was reprised many years later, during the Australian nationalist political period during the 1980's, and is supported by the convict indents of the Pyramus, 1836, and of the Hougoumont, 1868, demonstrating many, particularly the women in the earlier ship, were poor, working low level jobs, and were transported for very minor offences. It should also be noted that the nature of criminals transported would have changed over time, as death sentences were less commonly issued, and imprisonment in Australia was an increasingly appealing option for harsh crimes.

The second question that needs addressing is the degree of freedom that was enjoyed by those in Australia during this period. While it was a penal colony, was Australia equivalent to slavery? Anne Summers points out in 'Damned Whores and God's Police' that while serving their sentences, women were subjected to "systematic abuse" and punishment, as presumably were the men. While conditions of imprisonment on the island may not have been pleasant, their opportunities once released were in many cases much improved from England, where they could break from poverty, and could start a new life and become land owners. Also, all children of convicts were born as free settlers, a right not given to slaves.

Chained convicts being led to prison hulks, possibly prior to transportation to Australia. Convicts depicted as  a criminal class, compared with the other well dressed citizens,  with few freedoms, bound by chains. This can be compared to the opportunities they are given once free in Australia.

"Splindid Jem", 1821, Issac Robert Cruikshank

http://emuseum.anmm.gov.au/code/emuseum.asp?id=17395