CONVICT LIVES: How has the image of convict women changed across time?

Obviously the stories of the first fleet and the convicts settling Australia are well publicised, however often the female stories are not as well known.  The women that came across on the first fleet and settled in Australia have traditionally been viewed in a negative light. At the time of transportation, the women were viewed poorly and treated even worse. Many within the female population were forced into prostitution, even if they were married with a family, just so that they could survive the harsh conditions of the colony. They were viewed as cheap and common whores and treated as such by the men. It could also be seen from information taken from the Pyramus and Hougoumont that women were being sent to the colonies for crimes far less severe than the equivalent males. Furthermore, these women were generally of a much younger age than the men. It can be argued that this was occurring because there was a desperate need to increase the female population in Australia, as the male to female ratio was very unequal in favour of the men. As time has gone on, and in recent years, the women of the colonies have gone from being seen as cheap prostitutes to brave soldiers. Upon reflection it becomes apparent that these women were fighting a battle of survival for not only themselves but often also children, and as such was willing to take drastic measures to do so. The penal colonies would have been a very terrifying place for a woman, fighting not only the natural elements, but a whole new world and system so unlike anything they would have experienced in Great Britain, however they fought on and were pioneers of the Australia of today and helped forge the fighting spirit so commonly associated with Australians.  

                                                         http://williamsfamilyfirstfleeters.blogspot.com/

The depiction above represents how the women of the colonies were, at the time, viewed as cheap prostitutes.

FRONTIER OR HISTORY WARS: Why has the issue of frontier violence provoked such intense debate? What is at stake here?

It has long been accepted that there was violence and conflicts between the native Aborigines of Australia and the British upon their settlement in the eighteenth century. However, in recent times it is being questioned whether these many skirmishes should be recognised as a time of war, rather than simply frontier violence. Many acts of violence occurred across a vast number of years between the Aborigines and the settlers. Fights broke out over theft, women resources and obviously land and territory. Violence was displayed from both the settlers and the Aborigines with both parties instigating and retaliating to the fighting at one point or another. Ultimately many people were killed on both sides, although considerably higher tolls were taken by the Indigenous Australians. Although this is admitted to, the fighting has not been officially considered warfare. Australia was born on the foundations of freedom and a fair go for all, if it becomes officially considered that Britain initiated a war with the native people of Australia in order to win the land on which we are now settled, this would force the citizens to question their entire existence, foundations and way of life. Furthermore, it is very difficult to actually gauge the extent of the fighting that occurred. The massacres were largely conducted by bushman and farmers, not an official army or authority. Whilst from the Aboriginal side, no documentation was made, simply the stories that have been passed down through generations through word-of-mouth. Finally, the subject of Indigenous relations is still very sensitive in Australia today; treatment of Aborigines has remained poor from the time of settlement until only approximately the last fifty years. Although minor attempts are being made, the conditions that the Australian Indigenous population are faced with are still poor in terms of healthcare, education and general living standards. It would be difficult for a government to recognise a war that occurred where not only it reflects poorly on the country, but the effects are still being seen on the Aboriginal population today.

http://nebuchadnezzarwoollyd.blogspot.com/2008/08/revisionists-and-keith-windschuttle.html

It is being argued that the skirmishes between settlers and Aborigines, such as the one being depicted in this picture, should be recognised as being part of a larger frontier war.

OUTPOST OF EMPIRE: What are the competing arguments about the foundations of Australia?

There are four predominant theories on the origins of the foundation of Australia including dumping ground for convicts, natural resources, trade routes and expansion of the empire. Obviously the most commonly discussed theory is that Australia was to become purely a ‘dumping ground’ for the unwanted criminals of Great Britain. The jail system of England was floundering and under considerable strain in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. As a result of the War of Independence in America, the United Kingdom could no longer send convicts to America, with jails filled to an unsustainable capacity; hulks began to be used as a short-term solution to the overcrowding. However the ships were an unhealthy breeding ground for disease and a long term solution was required. This came in the form of Australia; a large, resourceful and, believed to be, un-claimed land that’s very nature and geography would provide a ‘natural jail’. There is also the belief that Australia was colonised due to the vast natural resources it possessed and therefore the wealth it could proved for the empire. In particular was the flax and timber which was extremely valuable in the navy and the construction of ships. Similarly is the belief that colonisation was for economic purposes as Australia could significantly open up trade routes into Asia and in particular the Dutch East Indies. Yet again this would provide significant economic advantages for the Empire of Great Britain. Underpinning these theories is the notion that Australia was simply settled out of the desire to expand the empire. Obviously it would also solve the convict problems and generate wealth, but above these factors is the expansion of territory and therefore power for Great Britain. It is most likely that a combination of all the above factors ultimately contributed to the settlement of Australia.    

                                                        http://clubtroppo.com.au/2010/09/01/australian-alternate-history-week/

Convicts arriving at the 'dumping ground' in order to release the pressure on Great Britain's jail system is just one theory behind the settlement of Australia. 

AUSTRALIA & ENLIGHTENMENT: How did scientific and Enlightenment philosophy change the manner in which Europeans conceived of their role in the world’s conquest?

During the 18^th century the Western world underwent what is considered an age of Enlightenment. The changes meant that the world was entering into an age of reason whereby scientific fact played a considerable role in the decisions made by countries, rather than religion. Although obviously religion still played a predominant role in society, the ruling class were now making the distinction between religion and science and commerce. The desire to improve trade, commerce and ultimately wealth increased during this time, sparking a revival in the attempt to find and subsequently exploit the unknown continent of the south. Prior to this, the myth of a ‘Great Southern Land’ was nothing more than the imaginative hopes of individuals that a large Eden-like paradise existed in the Pacific, although it was enticing, there had been no urgency to seek and claim this land. European countries could now see the immense economic benefit in acquiring a large ‘untouched’ land. Despite prior reports from various explorers claiming it was baron and not desirable, this land mass could open up trade routes for many European countries into the Dutch East Indies, a valuable economic asset. Following Captain James Cook and his naturalist Joseph Banks reports on the Eastern coast of Australia, the interest was piqued further as many scientific discoveries of flora and fauna emerged from the expedition, opening up further potential economic ventures for whoever could claim the land. Ultimately, the scientific and enlightenment period resulted in European counties exploring the undiscovered for motivations other than simply to conquer, but looking into the many economic and scientific ventures that could emerge from claiming new territory in the south seas.     

                                                                      http://www.anbg.gov.au/biography/banks.biography.html

Naturalist Joseph Banks made many important scientific discoveries upon his expedition to Australia with Captian James Cook. These discoveries led to increased desire by Britain to claim the land due to it's economic potential.

RESPONSES TO GOLD: How did people imagine Australia’s future in light of the gold discoveries, but what anxieties did the gold-rushers inspire?

The Gold rush caused monumental change to Australia and in particular Victoria. People from all colonies as well as countries across the globe including Ireland and China, flocked to the Central Highlands region forming townships of Ballarat, Bendigo and Clunes amongst many others. As the population of Victoria expanded rapidly from 20,000 in 1851 to 300,000 in 1860, people’s expectations of the Australia’s future, similarly increased. The wealth that was being brought into the economy from the gold as well as the people that were coming to Melbourne and the surrounding regions meant that the infrastructure of the colony saw significant improvements, as well as the growth in businesses. Coupled with this influx of wealth was the rising notion of Australia as a lucky country where any poor man could strike it rich. This sentiment however, was often dramatised so that many people travelled to the diggings with a false belief that they would immediately find an enormous nugget and never have to work again. In reality, many men worked tirelessly in dangerous and dirty conditions on the goldfields for several years and never ‘struck it rich’, but only found enough gold to fund remaining on the goldfields. The goldfields of central Victoria and the diggers that lived there ultimately created many concerns for society. The disproportionate ratio of men to women led to what many felt to be an immoral lifestyle with gambling and alcohol (although officially prohibited), rife on the diggings. Furthermore, the abandonment of many women and their families at home whilst there husband travelled to the goldfields was common, whilst the women that did accompany their husbands were subjected to the poor lifestyle of the diggings. Another concern raised on the goldfields was the high number of immigrants and in particular the large number of Chinese. Not only were there fears of the foreigners, but there was also anger generated due to the Chinese immense work ethic and the fact that they would find gold and then return to China without injecting any of the wealth back into the Australian economy.  Ultimately, the gold rush was not everything that it was originally anticipated to be, there were in fact many causes for concern.  

                                            http://home.vicnet.net.au/~mothers/4%20Smythesdale%20Goldfields.html
This picture depicts the dissent of women as well as men into the immoral lifestyle of the diggings that included excessive alcohol and gambling, one of the concerns that arose from the goldfields.