Backbencher

Lecture 4 described the way that Australian and New Zealand were colonized from the very beginning. Also how these different types of colonization formed different myth histories for Australia and New Zealand. It was cool how in Australia the fact that you have a original convict in your bloodline is a badge of honor, in a lot of society's today it would be considered a blemish and you would try and hide it to the best of your ability. But there they proudly display it and say look at us look how far we have come.

In New Zealand it was very different kind of settlement with wealthy second sons coming to. The planned settlement was one of those plans that sound really good on paper but fall apart in the real world. Even as I look at this and see that it would never work in the real world I still wish that it would the systematic colonization of New Zealand and the way it was planed out makes it sound like a beautiful society to live in will the perpetual ability to advance if you are hard working and prudent with your money.

I was thinking about the revisionist and the myth history part of the lecture and I was wondering if maybe this is one of the reasons some people lose faith in historians? Some people believe that history should be static and never changing but Dr. Isern said that Myth history has to be constantly revised so that it is still relevant.