Backbencher

Another week and another lecture (Yippy). Besides taking on the daunting task of limiting and simplifying the early history of both New Zealand and Australia, the lecture comes across as providing a glimpse of what it means to be either an Australian or a New Zealander.

Australia had started off being a reform colony for the excess criminals from the Mother Country. It failed as more non-convicts settled and wanted to build a more respectable colony. Yet, the mystique of this criminal background would continue but more as something to be proud about.

On the other hand, New Zealand was colonized as a model colony, where the best of English society could flourish. Yet, this too failed as the need for large tracts of land for pastoral usages was limited by the severe lack of land on an island. This in turn limited people who could live off the land.

Because of these stories of early settlement, it is perhaps easier to understand the rebellious nature of Australia compared to the loyal New Zealand. Finally, with this lecture, the line of thought of “myth history” comes up again. What is intriguing is the notion that history needs to be constantly revised. In general, most historians are dry and boring as the books they’ve written and read. Now add a dash of myth and spice things up. With that in recipe in mind, history is not dead.