British Imperialism in Australia
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
British Imperialism in Australia World History Textbook: pgs. 655-657 Geography Textbook: maps on pgs. 635-647 ____________________________________________________________________________ January 18, 2015Olivia Baird Washington State University: https://history105.libraries.wsu.edu/spring2015/2015/01/18/british-imperialism/ Why is there a random island, filled mainly with white people, in the middle of the Indian and Pacific Ocean? This does seem rather bizarre, does it not? Well it all started on January 26, 1788, the day that Australia succumbed to its former name, the penile colony. Aboriginals, Australian natives, possessed the land since time immemorial, but now with the entrance of eleven British vessels that carried 1030 convicts Australia was transformed, and as some may argue, never to be restored. The British did not only wish to exile their convicts far away from their homeland, but if possible to make them disappear. What better way to do this then ship them off to a remote, exiled and what some called ‘invisible island’, who’s land had no previous history with it’s now anomalous white creators [1]. British’s terms to move in their convicts to the virgin lands of Australia were mainly based off of net benefit calculation. The net benefits had three key elements: “the difference between the costs of keeping convicts in Great Britain and in Australia during their period of servitude; the net output the ex-convicts produced in each country after their release; and the cost of transportation.” [2] However, when the British took over Australia they brought in more than technology and livestock, they also brought war and multiple diseases as well. Throughout this “well thought out plan” the British shared no empathy for how these actions were going to affect Australia’s native people. Overall, the aboriginals viewed the arrival of the convicts as a catastrophe [3 Figure 1. The British’s attempts to colonize Australia had numerous effects on Australia’s indigenous people as well. At first Aboriginals saw the British Settlers as no threat, they welcomed them as visitors and there were even moments of cultural exchange. There was a temporary time where they suggested no conquest, just adventure. There was not necessarily unity, but there was peace between the settlers and the indigenous people. During this time the Aboriginals did not bother the British newcomers, and the British were ordered not to fire unless remotely necessary. The Aboriginals were simply waiting for them to leave. However, during the next few months the Aboriginals grew impatient. Aboriginal tribes became aggravated with the British’s selfish acts and began making attacks on officers and convicts, in hopes to drive them out [3]. The aboriginals were offended with the settlers over staying their welcome. Shortly both parties began to realize they did not meet eye to eye after all, and what was once civil turned to chaos. There was no visible political framework among the aboriginals, and in fact they among themselves were definitely not united either. Multiple languages and dialects were spoken among the hundreds of different tribes, bands, families etc., all of which had a different class and lifestyle as well. This posed a great deal of conflict with the British because the aboriginals had a unique way of dividing and “owning” land that the British did not quite understand. Aboriginals began to attack the settlers to move them off their land and rightfully defend what had always been theirs. However, the British did not see the land as theirs, so they saw it as unjustified attacks [4]. The domino effect hit hard as war didn’t just break out between aboriginals and the white settlers, it expanded between indigenous peoples tribes as well. Aboriginals were acclaimed to be living in a constant state of tribal warfare [5]. The British had sailed into an “empty” continent, scattered with even less primitive men. The British strongly believed that the fittest triumphed so they used it as a means to rationalize the destruction of the aboriginals by saying that it was the natural law. Ironically enough though, the first white settlers were extremely unfit for survival on the new land themselves. The settlers lived on the edge of starvation for months because they didn’t know how to provide for themselves with what they thought to be limited natural resources [6]. In short, “By standards, the Aborigines were technologically weak but manually adept.” [7]. During attacks aboriginals used tactics that would undermine the economic basis of many areas of white settlement [8 Figure 2. Numerous killings and raids by the blacks, and torturing’s and slaughtering’s by the settlers drew on. Finally, as the aboriginal population was dwindling Governor King tried to instill some peace. He forcefully reminded colonists that the killings of natives “will be punished with the utmost severity of Law”. Colonists were to be hung, flogged or given some sort of public shaming in offense to harming a native. This may had stopped some British from their crusades, but to the aboriginals the British law was a grey area. They had no knowledge or comprehension of basic law nor evidence that would be clear to put their trust in them. From then on any contact with an aborigines would be much the same. There would be a collision between “white culture or private property and a black one of primitive communism” in which they disagree on how the land or other resources were to be unitized and/or owned. Sometimes the blacks would move on, but usually the tribe’s warriors would attack, only to be rendered helpless against the colonist firearms [8]. Attacks and raids drew on, but as the time for reassembling parliament was drawing near talk of a few new Bills raved. However, much surprise was expressed when there was not a nation emigration scheme proposed. Aboriginals were complaining how emigration was whipping off the top of their industrial population and in hand, leaving many women and children dependent on the support of their community and public. Many felt that it would be beneficial to create a new policy that would give back a sense of accomplished services as consumers and producers to the people who initially created it, even though they were about to render them to Britain. Overall, they hoped that they could utilize, the skills the immigrants possessed to make reproductive investments with their power instead of putting them to waste. This in proportion would also strengthen the imports of the mother country. This then would create benefits for the British as well as Australia. [9] Although there was high hope in the air that aboriginals would surrender to the British’s demands, their resistance to imperialism lasted as long as ten years in some areas of Australia. Although they were fated to lose because Europeans modern technology was against them they would not give in. Aboriginals fought for their natural and sacred land. Not only had they endured war, but their hunting environment had been torn apart as introduction of livestock drove out other game, pasteurization defeated the bases of aboriginal life, their habitat in nature was destroyed by having the rich forestry cut back and they watched as familiar plants died out. And to top it off their ancient routes and runs were fenced off. Aboriginals were now mute. They no longer had a say or do in anything about their lives or land. What was really ironic about all of this inequality and madness though, was that Aboriginals were classified as British subjects [8]. If Australia was Britain’s place to put their defects, how poorly must their regards for Aboriginals have been? Britain’s decision to unlimitedly “dump” their unwanted citizens in Australia truly showed their utter disregard for native peoples. Over the torturous years attempting to administer imperialism, British had effectively absorbed aboriginals socially into the lower class of the colony. This was in part due to the convicts that were brought into Australia, noticeably lowering the class and civilization of the region. From then on Australia was viewed as distant, weird and tainted, overall undesirable to all foreigners [10]. On June 21st, 1845 convicts of conditional pardons were given reports that they may find themselves being extended from Van Dieman’s Land and to the property of Australian colonies and New Zealand. There were meetings held to discuss this matter the following months, but opposing resolutions and many South Australian societies expressiveness of “moral calamity” was overlooked. In addition, many letters and were passed between the South Australian Company and the Colonial Secretary. On September 6th, 1845 a letter shows Lord Stanley stating grave disapproval of the situation by saying that “…respectable persons would be deterred from emigrating to South Australia.” The last dispatched document was written by the Colonial-office on May 13th. In this letter Mr. Secretary Gladstone denied any convicts even those who had received the Queens pardon to move to Australian colonies once departing from Van Dieman’s Land. Gladstone continued by stating that all convicts, with the Majesty’s pardon, now had the right of removing themselves to any desired country or colony except the ones in which they had been transported from [11]. Figure 3. By the 1850’s things were looking better for Australia as a free country. There was no day of national celebration where autonomy was seized in Australia nor was there was a definite sign of sheer independence, because determining when Australia achieved its independence is difficult to pin point, but by the time they passed the Australian Acts in 1986 Australia was claimed free at last. Many minorities in Australia still argue that the British monarchy remains head of state in the commonwealth of Australia, but it doesn’t hinder their independence.