Backbencher

Muriel's Wedding is a movie based on the life of a young woman (22) that kind of has a crappy home life with her parents. Muriel's hometown is in porpoise Pit Australia. It is about how this young woman has dreamed and is still dreaming of a wedding but her father and friends (or so called friends) tell her she will never amount to anything. Muriel is a very homely looking gal that doesn't dress right or wear make-up, and she doesn't do her hair right. Basically the beginning of the movie is when one of her friends gets married she catches the flowers which symbolizes that she will get married next. But her friends convince her to give it to one of their other friends because she will never get married. The story goes on that Muriel gets a job from one of her dads "girl" friends, which turns out to be his lover, at a make- up selling place. But Muriel decides to take the blank check that her mother writes and go on the vacation that her so called friends did not invite her on. She meets a great friend, Rhonda, and they end up moving to Sydney. They get an apartment together and Muriel finds a job. Muriel actually gets asked out on a date but the date turns bad when Rhonda falls and needs to be rushed to the emergency room. It turns out she has a brain tumor.
Muriel ends up going into a bridal shop and tries on dresses and decides to start a wedding album of all these dresses that she has tried on. Finally her dad track her down for basically stealing all of their money and tells her that she has to go back home to pay him back. So instead she goes through a dating catalogue so to speak and finds a guy that has to marry an Australian because he was from South Africa. Well not give the ending away she realizes that this set up marriage was not what she wanted and she didn't want the fake life anymore.
This movie was based in Australia so that is a plus for our class. There was some reference to the Australian government as Muriel's father at the beginning had run but in the middle of the movie turns out to actually be apart of the government. Also I noticed that the way they talked about their grades in school were different, they called them years, like year 11. I was a good comedy (for girls I think) but also made me cry, I don't know I must be emotional. But it did seem that the men of the movie were kind of mean, especially the father. The mother seemed to be dim-witted. There also seemed to be an old fashion sense that a young women should be married or is never going to amount to anything.
The critics seemed to like it. I didn't mind it but I felt that Whale Rider was much more interesting than this movie.

After looking back through my notes on lecture two, I feel that the reason for this lecture was to get the students more familiar with the geography of Australia and New Zealand. If most students came into this class like I did, they were all pretty unfamiliar with this part of the world besides what they see on TV and in movies.
Seeing the different landmarks, forests, deserts, etc helped me to understand a different part of the world from the United States. The pictures of the different locations really helped to paint a picture in my mind of what these two countries look like. I have always been unsure of what the geography of the land in Australia was like because what you seem to see in the media always portrays it as paradise. They don’t show rainforests, deserts or anything like that.
The vegemite challenge was a little unsettling for me. As I am a very picky eater I couldn’t let myself try it after watching people’s faces and even watching a girl run out for water. I was very interested in knowing what it was like but I couldn’t make myself try it in front of a large class. That is something I do hope to try sometime though just to say that I have tried it.
I am finding myself having a hard time understanding some parts of each lecture. I’m not a history major and I feel like my mind doesn’t really think the same way other people’s in the class does. I hope that as time goes on I begin to understand more and more about both Australia and New Zealand.

I was looking back at when we started lecture 2 one week ago and compared it with today’s lecture. I noticed how it was divided into two sections; one on Australia and the other being New Zealand. His focus thus far has not been to divide the lecture into sections. This was helpful as I could really focus on each country separately. I was also caught off guard today when someone posed the question in class regarding if Australia is a separate country. I guess I had never spent much time thinking about it, but had always just assumed it was part of Australia. Last Tuesday I enjoyed the pictures that Mr. Isern had taken of various parts of Australia as I am a visual. I also learned that when you hear the word dairy it is comparable to a convenience store in the United States. We focused on the geography and divided the country (Aust) into three parts; East Australia Highlands, Interior Lowland Basin, and the Western Plateau. I will choose an interested fact about each area so not to bore or repeat. I thought it was a cool fact to know that the East Australia Highlands were the most humid part of Australia. When Mr. Isern talked about the Interior lowland Basins I leraned what Mallee was and learning new things is always fun. The Western Plateau is where tussock formation grows.

The vegemite challenge was very interesting to observe. I think I am pretty adventurous when it comes to trying new things, but I couldn’t get myself to try yeast. After a few of the students reactions I was kinda glad I sat back. One girl even ran to the drinking fountain for water!!

I was looking back at when we started lecture 2 one week ago and compared it with today’s lecture. I noticed how it was divided into two sections; one on Australia and the other being New Zealand. His focus thus far has not been to divide the lecture into sections. This was helpful as I could really focus on each country separately. I was also caught off guard today when someone posed the question in class regarding if Australia is a separate country. I guess I had never spent much time thinking about it, but had always just assumed it was part of Australia. Last Tuesday I enjoyed the pictures that Mr. Isern had taken of various parts of Australia as I am a visual. I also learned that when you hear the word dairy it is comparable to a convenience store in the United States. We focused on the geography and divided the country (Aust) into three parts; East Australia Highlands, Interior Lowland Basin, and the Western Plateau. I will choose an interested fact about each area so not to bore or repeat. I thought it was a cool fact to know that the East Australia Highlands were the most humid part of Australia. When Mr. Isern talked about the Interior lowland Basins I leraned what Mallee was and learning new things is always fun. The Western Plateau is where tussock formation grows.

The vegemite challenge was very interesting to observe. I think I am pretty adventurous when it comes to trying new things, but I couldn’t get myself to try yeast. After a few of the students reactions I was kinda glad I sat back. One girl even ran to the drinking fountain for water!!

After reading some of Manning Clark, I was interested in a few things which he touched on in the first few chapters. I was intrigued by how the convicts could gain land through good behavior. I would never have thought that these convicts would be given the chance to own land. Clark does tell a good story of how one certain man had to resell his land back to the government because he needed the money for liquor.(How ironic, isn't it?) Although he does get a little bland at times, some of his stories are pretty interesting.

Whale Rider is a very good movie I thought. The movie starts off by getting you involved with this newborn child that happens to be a girl. The mother of the girl dies after childbirth and her twin brother dies as well after birth. The baby girl that survives name is Pai. The grandfather of Pai instantly asks the father of Pai where the boy is and wants nothing to do with the girl because he is the Chief of their Maori village and the boy was to learn the history behind their ancestors and become chief. Since the boy dies the grandfather instance seems to have a huge grudge against Pai. But as Pai grows older and also because her father leaves right after she was born due to the grandfather, it seems that the grandfather takes a liking to her because he had too. He did teach her the chants and the history. But then when Pai is 12 her father comes back and it seems to throw the grandfather into fast mode of finding a new chief. This I think was because the grandfather finds out that Pai's father is going to have a child with a white women from Germany. So the grandfather takes all the young Maori boys of the village to teach them the ways of the Maori ancestors. But Pai gets left out because she is a girl and being a girl and a chief would cause a curse. Well Pai stands in the background learning all the techniques that the boys of the village are learning and her grandfather finds out. Well the grandfather fails at finding the next chief and Pai is the one to recover the whale tooth. In the end Pai does become the next chief because she ends up riding a whale as her ancestor Paika did (the first one to come over).
Through out the whole movie I felt really sorry for Pai because she seemed to just get passed around. Also I will admit that I cried because I became very emotionally attached to Pai. I also felt that this movie was a great way to see the culture of a Maori village. This movie was not what I expected it was much better!

Today, I was perticipating in the great American pastime of channel flipping when I noticed on IFC (Independent Film Channel) that Rabbit Proof Fence was going to begin in 15 minutes. A well-done film that lacked a little in depth in my opinion, which I will address later.

The first thing that was noticed was the vastness of the land. In my lap during the film was the A volume of the World Book Encyclopedia looking at a map of Western Australia. The size of such an administrative region boggles the mind at times compared to North Dakota which is not as sparsely populated. My train of thought was focused on the Australian people and officials. Mr. Neville, who was Chief Protector of Aborigines from 1915 to 1940, seemed bound to do his duty to civilize the Aborigines. What I do not understand is the importance of this escape in the press. Was it important? Were there many critics of this policy? It seems that they went to great lengths to find these three in such a vast wilderness. My mind kept on wandering to American Indian policy and the times I have been to Fort Totten. That Indian school seems great compared to being torn away from your family never to be seen again and to be given a new name and culture, destroying your identity.

At the same time this "white man's burden" as Kipling said, was also practiced in Africa as well. This policy of "reeducation" lasted until 1970 was also the same year that non-white immigration opened up. Has Australia always been so xenophobic? Only 35 years later does this feeling still impact society?

My only concern was that it lacked depth. I thought that an angle was missing. The way the story was presented was like I should know something about this incident. This film helps show the darker side of Australia, not just the fun "Land down under."

Zach Heuer

I think we can all agree with Mr. Matt Miller that the British program of "forced adoption" of aborigine children was a really bad idea. The assumption that the adoptees would eventually assimilate into European society was shortsighted at best. As Matt also points out, parallels in history do exist and some of them are more recent than you might think.

I was listening to MPR one day and they had an extensive piece dealing with Korean orphans that were adopted by American families following the Korean War. A significant portion of these children were adopted by upper middle-class or even wealthy families in communities which probably included few other minorities. Many of these children faced an extreme identity crisis. They knew they were different, but had no knowledge of the culture from which they came. In some cases this led the adoptee to resent his or her adoptive parents and return to Korea as soon as they were able.

We can justify this by telling ourselves that the adoptee's life in America was better than what he/she could've expected in a Korean orphanage, but I bet the citizens of Colonial Australia used a similar excuse.

-Dylan

"It is an attracting concept to think of the cane toad introduction as "reckless and irresponsible." Most biological controls are appreciated and often sought out." -Whitney Baethke

Perhaps if the toad would've solved the problem, it could have been seen as a "necessary evil." However, since its lifestyle was contradictory to that of its intended prey, I think that show a significant oversight on the part of authorities. I have briefly looked for an account of the species' history in Hawaii (where it was introduced for the same problem) but haven't found anything substantial yet.

-Dylan

Nothing wrong with a little rant now and then! Yes, Clark sure can be circuitous. The answer, I think, is that Clark does not consider himself a social scientist (hung up on hypotheses and such things) but rather a story-teller, who has to wait and see where the story goes. He's making his country out of stories, not theses. Because of that he went out of style in the late 20th century. Stories are back in style in the 21st century, however. Lucky I lived this long!

Sometimes I like him, sometimes I don't. He has this way of telling a story, usually a good story, but you don't know what the point of it is until the end. What ever happened to a historian stating his thesis at the BEGINNING of a chapter? Just a little rant... The book is pretty good so far.

Lecture one consisted of the general origins of Australia and New Zealand as well as their peoples. From the ancient migration of the aborigines to the more recent arrival of the Maori, we discussed the impact that these inhabitants had on their new environment as well as the way the environment impacted them. The lecture then switched to the coming of Europeans. There was then the matter of how the native cultures would interact with that of the new arrivals. The lecture showed who the synthetic culture fared better in contact with the Europeans than did the static culture of the aborigines; however there were still clashes between them. With that, the lecture looked at Australian and New Zealand race relations. This was shown with examples such as the attempted extermination of the aborigines through killing or abduction of children and the opposite end of the spectrum in New Zealand with the eventual signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. The lecture ended with a look at modern day race relations and how they might not be as mellifluous as previously thought.
I was interested in the impact of the early people on their environment. It has always seemed that the belief that native people were in harmony with their environment has been common knowledge. It is interesting to find out that some of these cultures may have hunted the megafauna in their lands, such as the moa, to extinction. It was also interesting to start the lecture with music from aboriginal artists and how one wouldn’t really be able to discern what is necessarily native music.

In chapter 4 of Clark, the end of the chapter deals with the subject of moving the Aborigines from barbarism to civilization by education. The British thought that if the Aborigines were taught to think as they think, to feel as they feel, and to live as they live, then the Aborigines would be blended with the general population. This idea sounds very familiar to what our nation did to the Native Americans. It is a parallel in history. Our nation wanted the Native Americans to discard their way of life in order to blend with or assimilate into the general population. These "great" intentions that the British had for the Aborigines were interrupted. The British thought they should give recompense to the Aborigines for depriving them of their lands; the best recompense was to teach the Aborigines to appreciate the advantages of Christian civilization. There was one little problem with this though; the British enjoyed the drunken brawls between the Aborigines. This fact really makes the British look inhumane and uncivilized. Who are they to impose "the correct teachings" on another group of people when they get a kick out of people mangling each other?

I was watching "Jeopardy" on Monday, January 30, and one of the "Double Jeopardy" rounds was Aussie capitals. The clues consisted of hints from the states' capitals of Australia. Some of the clues contained terms we are currently studying at this moment such as "Van Dieman's Land" and "Tasmania."

I found that chapter 4 of Clark's "A Short History of Australia" to be very interesting. There are several men who emerge to be the governor. It seemed as though the man in the governor's office changed quite frequently. I thought that Governor Brisbane's radical idea dealing with the convict system was interesting. By moving the convicts who were able to be reformed to the countryside, he thought that they would be free from all evil temptations and associations. Land grants to emancipists and expirees were abolished. Brisbane was advised that if he did not distingish between emancipist and immigrant, he would disgust the free part of society. I found it a legitimate reason to do this as the British government did not want the convicts to have a better life there than the one provided by a life of crime in Britain.

The cultural landscape of Australia has been in constant flux since the white man has entered upon it. In 1931, the journey of three young Aborigine girls changed to face of Australian and world culture forever. Daisy, Gracie, and Molly were half-caste girls in the North West region of Australia. Their fathers worked on stations along the Rabbit-Proof fence and their mothers were native of the land. Public policy recently administered by the white governments required all half-caste children to be removed from their homes and placed in boarding schools in southern Australia. Once at the school, and unbeknownst to the families, the girls would be trained as domestic help and passed out to local farms in the southern region.

Rabbit Proof Fence follows the journey of Daisy, Gracie, and Molly as they escape from their school and travel north along the Rabbit-Proof Fence in an attempt to get home to Jigalong. Through perils country and ever-changing climate and landscape, the three young girls hunt and beg their way from homestead to homestead and rabbit burrow to rabbit burrow, until almost nine weeks later they arrive to their families outstretched arms.

This book is important in the study of Australia because it heightens the awareness of the English conquest and shows the perils and lengths a people will go to protect and maintain their identity whether it be Aboriginal, white, or half-caste. These young girls knew nothing of the land they traversed, but they knew how to traverse it. With only hunting and survival skills these girls navigated themselves to the only place they knew as home. This book provides a deep insight into the strength of personal identity across the Australian outback. The book is really lacking nothing. It has the heartfelt emotion along with the suspense. It was a quick and easy read, one that I thoroughly enjoyed and would recommend to anyone.

My next step is going to be comparing the book and events in the book with the movie. I'll keep you posted on the developments as to what is left out or changed.

The author is Jill Ker Conway and the place is called Coorain which is sheep ranch 500 miles west of Sydney Australia on the Grasslands. Her main intent is to tell of her experiences through life which is also from Coorain and New South Wales and Sydney. She goes through some tough times and along the way points out some good history of Australia in the late 20s to the 60s, she really spans a time line here. She tells of their family stories while they were sheep ranchers in the outback. Also she really delivers the year by year changes of the times during World War 2. Her story is filled with testimony to all the hard ships in that time and her schooling along the way until she leaves to go to the states. She really tells the story so well that at times you can really feel the drab, dusty, dry conditions of the outback.

She also points out some historical points of the Aborigines and geographical points of the country it self. She describes every detail beautifully. Also in a historical aspect I feel this is a good book because it really gives you the inside prospective of how it was as a new settler in Australia at the time and the tough conditions one would have faced. I feel it describes the real evolution of Australia to what it is now through the eyes of a sheep rancher on the Grasslands. The only down fall is that some of the chapters are a bit drawn out to finally reach her point. I feel it is a good perspective of the era and the conditions and feelings of the ranching community at that time. I also feel that she does a good job conveying the feelings of Professional Women of the time, as to how society treated and viewed them along with the changes over time. I would recommend this book, it certainly has depth and was well thought out.

This story opens with the birth and subsequent death of the heir apparent to the title of a chief of the Maori people- an infant. The current chief is the grandfather of the child (the mother is also lost in the childbirth) but a twin girl survives. The elder chief is ready to retire, one cannot help but think that he should have done so long ago, but his own first born son rejected the opportunity to be the next chief and has gone on to pursue his own life in another direction. This leaves the older chief quite dejected over the loss of the first born son (of his own first born son) who would have been the next potential heir. The girl, rejected continually by the stubborn grandfather, learns the traditions of the ancient ones, the skills (despite the lack of encouragement) including a form of fighting with a stick... taught to her by the second born son of the elder chief. This is against the will of the elder chief- but it gives one pause to reflect that the second born son probably would have done well enough to take over as the next chief. This was not destined to happen, as the elder chief would not have stood for it. In the elder chiefs mind, there is no room for deviation from traditional lineage of power, from first born son to first born son, generation after generation, into pertuity. The elder chief seems to be continually missing opportunities to hand off his title despite his reluctance to continue to retain it.

The second born son is bypassed (The girls's uncle) and the elder chief seeks out a new chief amongst the boys of the village who might posess the willingness to learn the knowledge and skills required for leadership. Due to his own ingrained prejedices and unwillingness to be flexible on his traditional beliefs, the grand daughter is continually rejected and ignored until the climax of the film- the grandfather finally excepts the grand daughter as the next leader when she proves herself via exceptional acts, including recovery of a traditional object from the deep and a reinactment of a legendary whale riding incident.

This is quite a remarkable transformation, because the grandfather is portrayed as a difficult, obsessed man with no room in his mindset for anything but his own belief system.

The film is rich in location shots, you can learn a few Moari words, as well as view traditional Moari life- though I am not quite sure where the traditional seperates from "made for television" behavior.

I have no idea what the traditional seperation might be between boys and girls, what is exceptable and what is not in the Moari culture. I had previously been under the impression that the Moari women do NOT view themselves as an underclass and perhaps this is correct. Whether it is the case or not, this film seems to be of the bent that girls may be viewed as unequal by society, but can excel despite the efforts by a dominant male stereotype to keep them down. This seems to be a dominant theme- the rolling over from the old to a new cultural exceptance of the girl.

It would certainly make the film more marketable in America to have such a moral. As is often the case with films, I wonder if this represents a real situation of dominant male / submissive female in the Moari culture or if it is a movie with a poitical motive.

Either way, its a pretty good film, and I enjoyed it. I would be curious to know if there is a special connection between the whale and the Moari people or if this is another poitcial statement in disguise. (Save the whales!) NZ is well noted for its willingness to support environmental issues.

It is an iteresting concept to think of the cane toad introduction as "reckless and irresponsible." Most biological controls are appreciated and often sought out. While the cane toads do pose a problem on the Australian landscape, what needs to be considered is the time of such an itroduction. World wide the United States was going through a depression that had world-wide effects. It was mentioned in the movie that Australia was forced to compete with the world price of sugar. To easily (and most assumibly, cheaply) introduce a species to combat a major threat seems very logical. At the time they were probably unaware of the potential and devastating threats that in today's hindsight we can see.

In 1930s the sugar cane crop in Australia was trying to compete with the world price of sugar. The cane grubs and beetles, however, were detrimental to this goal. Cane Toads is a movie about the biological control of these pesky bugs. On June 23, 1935 102 cane toads arrived in North Queensland from a colony in Hawaii. The biological control did not work, however. The cane toads and cane beetles had completely different lifestyles. The cane beetle survived before the cane plant flowered, while the cane toad preferred the cane plant after it had leafy bush. The cane beetle could fly, the cane toad couldn't. Because each toad was able to lay up to 40,000 eggs in one summer, the cane toad population flourished. In 1945 a pesticide eliminated the cane beetle and left Australia with a cane toad problem.

What happened to the cane toad is something of a contest between Australians. Many Australians find the cane toad a pest and dangerous. It does after all have a poison that could have detrimental effects for a young child. Others fought to commemorate it with a bust, making it an iconographic image of the area. They lost that idea however. They did manage to get several songs about cane toads into the film, however.

Cane Toads was a remarkably interesting movie, complete with quirky humor that only the Australians can bring. It also posed to questions of non-native species integrating into once pristine landscapes and the "what comes next" scenario on how to deal with introduced species. Cane Toads showed Australia as a land of opportunity but also as a testing ground. This film raised many questions that would be perfect for further study about the cultural and environmental make-up of Australia. The question left burning at my mind after watching this movie was how is the cane toad problem going to be combated? Will Australia be forced to enter another species to become the hunter of the cane toad?

Imagine you are an unusually gifted and creative film student who has been given a grant from the government to create a documentary on a species of local wildlife. Now image that you spent half of the grant on the film, the other half on some really good drugs, and pursued both interests simultaneously. The result might be something like Cane Toads.

During the 1930's Australian sugar cane farms were plagued by a type of larva that fed on the roots of cane plants. Once matured, the larva became a beetle that fed on the above ground portion of the plant. Their answer was to import a colony of 102 Cane Toads from Hawaii, where they had apparently solved a similar issue. Since their introduction in 1930, the Cane Toads have spread like weeds along the northeastern coast of Australia and now inhabit over 40% of Queensland. Their expansion has left a unique impression on the local environment and citizenry. What they didn't do was solve the beetle problem.

Many interesting fact about the toads appeared throughout the movie. For instance, their mating instinct is so strong, male toads have been seen attempting to mate with road-kill females...possibly for eight hours or more. While dead toads are no good for reproduction, they have other uses. You can use them to get high or for making books. When Prince Charles and Lady Dianna were married, they were given a small book bound in toad skin. A letter from Charles stated their thanks for a gift that "will bring so much pleasure to us throughout our married life." Live toads are known to make modest pets who like belly rubs.

On the surface the film appears to be a lighthearted look at a local phenomenon. On a deeper level the film serves to inspire at least a little local camaraderie among those who live side-by-side with the toad. The film has another more obvious lesson to be learned. The introduction of the Cane Toad was clearly a mistake. What we should take away from this as historians is realize that even the most reckless and irresponsible decisions are sometimes the result of a person's best intentions.

To compare Aborigine language loss to that of the North American Native Indians- the number of original Native American Indian languages is estimated at 300 (www.britannica.com) and the estimated number of those indigenous languages that are still spoken is 175 (www.ncela.gsu.edu)

I recently read through the Sydney Morning Herald for January 30th. What I found interesting was that, just like in America, death and scandal were front and center ( maybe were not so different after all). The main story was about two bodies that were found burning in a barrel in New South Wales. I can't help but wonder if Australia's people see their image as a tolerant and peaceful nation slipping, especially after the race riots a month or so ago. Also, I ran across an article about an American F-18 that had crashed off of the coast of Queensland. This particular article seems to emphasize the tensions between U.S. military presence in the region that had been discussed in class. The article made it quite clear that the ship, the Ronald Reagan, was nuclear powered. In addition, the article goes on to point out that local fisherman have been finding bags of garbage that have somehow made their way off of the ship. Once again, the whole environmental idea is taking its place against the stark contrast of a nuclear ship and perceived American wastefulness. Finally, the article that most caught my eye was that of the Australian flag redesign contest. There were a few dozen designs submitted, some of the features are worth noting. A lot of the people wanted to abolish or make smaller the Union Jack, some people wanted to make the southern cross larger, and, interestingly enough, one submission wanted to add the stripes from the United States' flag. This flag contest seems to go hand in hand with what we were talking about in lecture about the Australians' identity, or lack there of. Many years have passed since Australia was a British penal colony, they must strike out to find their own identity in the world. To some, this identity would best be served as a close friend of the U.S. To others, an Australia with only a southern cross for a flag is just the new start Australia needs.

I was doing my response paper for a newspaper and came across a flag redesign contest in the Sydney Herald. Does anyone know if Australia is actually trying to change it's flag, or is this just a sort of contest to get interest in the paper?

Adam Lake

Lecture I History 381 Suzanne Ready
The Background History of Australia and New Zealand
In the first lecture, I learned about the contrasting origins of the natives of Australia and New Zealand. I learned about the climates of the two countries and learned about the regions and how the topography contributed to the lifestyle of the Aborigine tribe and the Maori tribe. I found it interesting the way the two different cultures adapted to or resisted the British/European invasion and settlement. Australia became a permanent settlement to many British convicts, forced from their homeland by an overcrowded and stressed penal system. Many of the British commanders thought to reclaim the this new land as their own, they must reeducate and Christianize the native tribes. The British commanders also set about to colonize the convicts by rewarding them, after adequate time periods, their ownership of land, after years of labor. Working the dry and arid land was quite a challenge.
The Aborigine tribes, and there were many with different dialects, were a unique group, as they lacked a class system, were non-materialistic and had little interest in the trading of possessions. They were a group of equals, with no obvious chief. In contrast, the Maori tribes had more chiefs and a status system, had one common language and were favorable to trade and learning and blending with the Europeans. There was a violent conflict between the Aborigines and the British, as Clark discusses in his book.
Diseases had a resounding and fatal affect on the Aborigines, and yet, diseases did not quite destroy the Maori peoples.
The British were not comfortable with the race of the Aborigines, and their moral decision was justified in their view, as they tried to integrate the young population of Aborigines into the white society, by ruthless and deceptive means. One can view the movie "Rabbit Proof Fences" to better understand this crime against nature that was inflicted upon the Aborigine young.

I felt that the primary intent of lecture two was to familiarize the students with the geographical features of Australia and New Zealand, emphasizing the differences between these two countries and the role the lands have played in the development of Maori, Aborigine, and settler cultures. New Zealand seems to have endured the blending of cultures fairly well. Its small scale, and adequate rainfall make it a beneficial location for both commercial timber growth and vineyards, which do well in the nutrient poor land. I was intrigued by the beautiful buildings (and thermal pits) in the Marae village. On the other hand, it is still a land still divided, as evidenced by the contention over native and exotic species of plants that span the country. The Lombardy poplars, while they are a beautiful tree, are obviously a non-native species. While they have been around long enough to be accepted, and even recognized as historical markers, the Briar (or Wild Rose) is still an irritation and not as readily accepted.

I was also surprised to see that crossing Cook’s strait was so choppy and gloomy. I guess I had envisioned it as being a short yet pleasant jaunt by ferry between the two islands. Like most of you (admit it) I was surprised to learn that all of Australia is divided between desert and bush, like popular American media portray it to be. While the western plateau is sandy desert deficient of lakes and streams, the interior lowlands have plenty of bush and grasslands with a higher annual precipitation. Furthermore, the East Australian Highlands are resplendent with areas of Eucalyptus forest and an annual precipitation of twenty-five, or more, inches of annual rainfall.

Having been to Yellow Stone National Park, in its current, barricaded state, I can clearly understand the temptation to see things up close. While I would probably avoid jumping off cliffs and swimming with crocodiles, I don’t think I could pass up walking that ledge under the water fall. I did notice that while listing the major attractions in these two countries, the surfing culture was omitted. I have it on good authority that the Western coast (near Perth) offers some of the best surfing waves this world of ours has to offer.

i am still getting an error every time i try to access the evalution page for research papers. is anyone else having this problem? if not could you email it to me or post it on the blog? thanks

Amelie Mauresmo and Roger Federer.

I have graded your assignments that were posted on or before Thursday January 26th. You should have received an email from me with your grade. If you have questions about your grade or if you haven't received them, drop me an email or see me during my office hours.

After watching “Rabbit Proof Fence”, I took some time to mull it over in my brain. The story is about three girls that are taken from their home in Western Australia in 1931. At this time, the government had a policy to “better” the aborigines and half bloods. The three girls were taken to a camp where they learned to be house servants and to eventually have the “black bred out of them”. However, Molly will not have that happen to her sister and cousin, so the three of them escape and decide to walk the rabbit proof fence over 1200 miles to their home. Along the way an Aborigine tracker follows them, and the government is determined to find them and return them to the camp. The film shows the will of the three girls to survive and the difficult task of walking that far without and food or water. Along the way, the cousin is fooled into believing that her mom is at the next town waiting for her, and she is captured and never heard of again. However, the two sisters make it home to their mom. At the end, the subtitles explain that they were captured for a second time, and again they walked back.

Overall, I thought this was a powerful movie because it was based on a true story. It was upsetting at how the Australian government had a system to rid the continent of Aborigines by kidnapping them and integrating them into white society. At one point in the movie while the girls were at the camp, they looked at the color of their skin, and if it were light enough they would go to a different school because it was believed they had a higher capacity to learn. This really upset me. Also that this policy went on until the 1970’s. I can see how those generations of Aborigines are upset and “lost” as they do not know their roots. I also liked how the film was able to capture the landscape of Australia, and they even were able to integrate a map into the film as they were tracking the girls, so it gave the viewer a sense of where it was taking place. I would recommend this film to anyone because of its power to make one think of the cruelty and mistreatment that happens between races.

The book A Short History of Australia by Manning Clark is the not-so-short history of the Aborigine peoples of Australia and their later encounters with the English and the history of their settlement together.

Manning Clark tells the story of the land of Australia, a land originally colonized by the Aborigine people from Indochina by following trade routes of the Chinese. Later, in the 1700’s, European explorers also colonized Australia and attempted to trade with the natives. Eventually the different cultures caused the Europeans to label the Aborigine people as pagans, and attempt to convert them to Christianity which led to many years of hostilities, which the British were not able to accept, as they wished to establish as a prison colony at Botany Bay. Eventually, settlers came to Australia wishing to explore farming and other trades, which proved difficult as the land of Australia is quite different from that of Europe or other lands they had already colonized. This led to a shortage of food for both the settlers and prisoners alike, causing more hostilities between the English and Aborigines, as they were forced to take more land in attempt to grow new crops.

This all changed in the early 1800’s, when Lacklon Macquarie was appointed Captain-General and Commander-In-Chief of the New South Wales colony. He was known for beginning programs which brought an end to the problems of lawlessness, poverty, and starvation in Australia. His programs of self-dependence led to new exports, which allowed Australia to begin a new era on her own.

As time progressed, Australia went through the traditional programs of prison reform and philosophical enlightenment of other countries. The English legislature granted Australia the powers to elect a local government, to prevent the problems England had suffered with the American Revolution. This is where Manning Clark makes a stand, he poises the history of Australia along with the history of the United States. This was rather difficult for me, as I believe that every country has its own history, and their story should be told in its own way. Whether his intent is to make it easier to the American reader to understand is anybody’s guess, however I believe it is the best idea to leave Australian history to the Australians.

Clark continues on to tell the story of Australia’s political maturing, in that they chose liberal and democratic parties to lead the different thoughts of the people. This created some problems for labor movements, which led people to think rather poorly of their own government. An age of Optimism began after this, in that Christian forces began a new age of positive and righteous thinking which persisted in Australia up to World War I. From being caught in World War I through the Cold war, Australia believed that they were just a model of the United States, and that they had no other boundaries through with which to guide themselves. It appears that being squeezed between two wars and the philosophies of Communism and Democracy have allowed Australia to explore two sides of completely different philosophies and discover themselves.

The reason that Manning Clark began the history of Australia similarly to the history of the United States was that Australia did not have much of a national identity, and it turned out that this was indeed true. Clark describes the difference of Australia beginning in the late 19th century, and it was not until then that Australia truly learned who she is.

Lecture number one consisted of the basic history of Australia and New Zealand. Some of the major points included the origin of the Aboriginal people and the description of Aboriginal culture. I had no idea that the Aboriginal people migrated from Southeastern Asia. I also thought it was interested how Howe researched the killing of the mega fauna in Australia, and used it to learn more about the history of Aboriginal people. I was also very intrigued by the Aboriginal way of life, which consists of few possessions. Lecture one also described the origins of the Maori people. I really liked the term, “The Vikings of the Sunrise”, but maybe the Vikings were “The Maori of the North.” It was also very interesting to learn how differently the Maori reacted to the Europeans compared to the Aborigines. I can’t help but ask, why does there always have to be conflict? No matter the part of the world, whenever Europeans come into contact with a new culture, there is always conflict. Why do they always feel the need to intervene?

Perth: The Western City Cousin

Perth is a busy and modern city that lies between the cerulean Indian Ocean and the ancient Darling Ranges. Its claim to fame is being the "sunniest state capital " in Australia! However, it is quite isloated, as it is over 4400 kilometers from Sydney, by road!

It is the most poplulous city of Western Australia and the state capital, with an estimated popluation of 1.5 million, making it the fourth largest city in Australia. It is known for its warm weather and picturesque parks.
The British Army had established a base King George Sound, later known as Albany, on the south coast of Western Australia in 1826, to stall the French annexing the area, it is rumored, Perth was the first settlement by the Europeans in the "western-third" of the continent. The town was established in 1829, as the capital of the Swan River Colony, a free settler colony. In 1850, it becamea convict colony, at the request of business and farming people, who wanted cheap labor. In 1901, Western Australia joined the Ferderation of Australia. Perth was named by the Scot James Sterling, after his birthplace of Perthshire, which was also his parlimentary seat in the British House of Commons.
Perth is set on the Swan River, named because of the native black swans. Summers in perth are hot and dry, and february is the hottest month of the year; the record being set in 1991 at 115* F! Winters are cool and moist. Perth is a significant base of operations for the military of Australia. The people of Perth are friendly, but a bit suspious of their Eastern "cousins", as they they feel the eastern people consider the Perth population to be a backward civilization...only because it is isolated, as Perth is closer to the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, than it is to the Australian capital of Canberra, or to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane! Perth boasts four public universities and one private university and has a symphony orchestra and has two teams in the Australian Footbvall League.

Dingo Dog

The Dingo was named by the Eora Aboriginal tribe, who were the original inhabitants of the Sydney area. The Dingo was a type of wild dog, perhaps descending from the Indian wolf. It has been descibed as an Australian wild dog, but it is not restricted to Australia and it did not originate there. Modern Dingos are in Southeast Asia, in the remaining areas of natural forest and Dingos are found mostly in northern Australia.
Dingos have features that are found in wolves and dogs and vary in their coloring. Most Dingos are a ginger color, some have a reddish tint, some are sandy, yellow and even black, with their underside being a lighter shade. Most Dingos have white markings on their feet, tip of their tail and on their chest. Some Dingos have a black muzzle.
Dingos breed only once a year, have permanently erect ears and do not bark. Wild Dingos prey on small or medium-sized animals, but can take on lizards, rodents, sheep and kangaroos.
Dingos do not generally form packs, they prefer to travel in pairs, or family groups.

The earliest known Dingo skulls were found in Vietnam and are considered about 5,500 years old. The origin of the Dingo may be related to the wolves of south-west Asia and may have been in that area about the time humans developed agriculture. Dingos are thought to have been brought by Austonesian traders to the Aborigines, maybe as early as 3000BC! The Dingos spread across the Australian continent rather rapidily, probably with human assistance. Aboriginal people have adopted the Dingo as a companion animal, using it to help with hunting and used for their warmth on cold nights. In the 1880's the Great Dingo fence began being constructed. It would stretch 8500 kilometers and at the time would be the longest man-made structre in the owrld. However, it has proven to be only partly successful in its plan to keep the Dingos out of the fertile southeast part of Australia.Although the fence helped reduce losses of sheep to predators, it was counterbalanced by increased pasture competition from rabbits and kangaroos. Dingos have received bad press because of Dingo attacks on fraser Island. As a result of interbreeding with dogs, the purebred Dingo gene pool is being swamped and by 1990, 1/3 of all wild DIngos in the south-east were hybrids.

Suzanne Ready

The first lecture talked a lot about the beginnings of Aborigine and Maori people, life and culture. I thought it was very interesting how different Australia and New Zeland are, I thought they would have had more similarities. One question I thought of was how do they know the Aborigines immigrated from Southeast Asia, if every Aborigine claims they originated in Australia? I find it very interesting how different the Aborigines and the Maori are from one another. Being so geographicly close one would think they would have similarities in culture or hierarchy. I guess with such different landscapes and the size difference is a major reason for the differences. The lecture also factored in how the two different cultures adapted to Eurpoeans. Its surprising that the Maori were so materialistic and the Aborigines didn't want anything to do with the Europeans. I guess this could stem from the fact that they were hunters and gathers and were constantly moving and the Maori stayed in one place and could aquire things. I think it makes sense that the Maori were more adaptable since they hadn't been there for as long as the Aborigines, kind of like, can't teach an old dog new tricks. At first I found it surprising but now makes sense for the race relation conflicts they have there, just like we had and have here. On point I thought was very interesting was how the Maori would dig tunnels to get from one place to the next to avoid war and escape the enemy. I find it pretty amazing for them to be able to construct such tunnels and to have come up with that idea since they couldn't have out done the Europeans in warefare with guns.

i agree with you about England's disillusionment in their attempts to start a colony entirely peopled by criminals. i was particularly disturbed by the harsh interactions between the settlers and the locals. i felt sympathy for the aborigine girls who were hacked to bits by other aborigines because they had became maid servants for the settlers. i was also disgusted by the behavior of the british upon reading about their "sport" of inciting two or more aborigines to fight, maim, and/or kill eachother. i wonder sometimes exactly what it means to be civilized.

I listened to the lecture about the landscape of NZ & OZ and I think that I was probably the most surprised to learn that there is more depth to the diversity than I had really imagined. In my mind, all of Australia had been flat, arid, and pretty God forsaken except for a couple of miles inland along the coast. This interested me enough to look up a topographical map of OZ, and sure enough, the more humid eastern portion of the continent is a different animal entirely. The western portion of the continent... pretty much as I had imagined, and even the basin area just east of central also appear to pretty much fit what I had imagined. Funny how we tend to visualize the worst.
I also had some pretty well developed pre concieved notions about NZ. I had watched a film clip about hunting in NZ several years ago, the piece I had watched centered on the Red Stag, a ferral species of deer brought in from England... they grow a lot larger than our white tail deer native to the woodsy areas of ND, and considerably larger than our mule deer, too. Mostly I remember the landscape, a lot of rapid changes in elevation...grass, and even what I know know to be speargrass. When I was young we called a similar appearing plant Spanish Dagger Grass, it is a bummer to hit it when on a motorcycle... as tough and as dry as it looks. Kind of reminded me of a more rugged, greener home landscape... it made me want to go to NZ and see it for myself, maybe hunt the red stag. It'll never happen, of course. But it did leave me with a pretty good idea of that portion of NZ and how it might look.

I had not expected rain forest, the paddock lands, or things to be artificially fertilized. This is a bit harder for me to relate to- though I would still like to see it. I think if I ever get the chance I will leave my bow and arrow at home... looks like a lot of work to tramp those hills.

I was especially surprised by the Yellowstone Park nature of portions of the island- the thermal areas. Thirty five years ago when I was first to Yellowstone it also lacked the barriers and one could pretty well polk around where ever they wanted to do so at his or her own risk... the attorneys have pretty well eliminated that now in our country... we lost something valuable when that happened. I'm glad I was there when it could still be done, I have good memories of that. Anyway, I see similarities... I do hope that the legal situation or concern for public safety doesn't make these kind of places totally inaccessable the entire world over, it just isn't the same when you have to experience this stuff from a distance.

I looked up how many current languages the Aborigines speak present day and this is what I found:

"There were 500–600 distinct groups of aborigines speaking about 200 different languages or dialects (at least 50 of which are now extinct)."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a/australab.asp

I looked at a couple different websites and they all had the same numbers.

The first lecture was about the Aborigine and Maori people. We learned about their backgrounds, how they lived before Europeans, how they reacted when the Europeans arrived, and the war that when down between the people. When imagining the Australian outback with the sun beaming down on the kangaroos, I hear the didgeridoo. It is most unusual looking instrument that produces the most unique sound. I definitely didn’t think that the song sang by Kurongk Boy and Kurongk Girl sounded at all like Australian music. But I did like that song, it had a nice beat. With it being 45 degrees today, January 26, 2006, I do believe somewhat what Tim Flannery had to say. It was this warm today because of global warming. And that is why California is burning and Okalahoma is flooding. The weather is very awkward all over our world not just in North Dakota. Someday we are going to run out of everyday things that we take for granted, so we are going to have to look for other options. Or we could change our ways now so that we won’t ever have to face that. But how do we get everyone in the world to help? If only we could all live like the Aboriginal people. They don’t care about escalades or Louis Vuitton. I thought that was pretty cool that when the Europeans offered their stuff to the people, they just weren’t interested. But poor Aborigine people one thing they did get was STD’s. I would probably be violent towards someone to if they gave my family a disease. But I am happy that I am not in their tribe because I want to be someone some day and I know in that tribe you are assigned a position in life at birth. But they seemed to be really smart people. I especially liked that they killed the Europeans cows to prevent them from spreading on the land. That’s a great idea. That is too bad that Australia doesn’t have the best national story. It really bothers me that that white people tried to bread the Aboriginal blood out of the Aborigines. Damn Europeans.

Our first lecture really seemed to point out more differences than similarities between the Australian Aborigine and the New Zealand Maori people... differences that may very well have been largely carved out by the very nature of the landscape underneath their feet. The Aborigine have an egalitarian society that likely must move often to where ever the resources are more plentiful, this necessitates owning very few items... even real estate is a non issue when you can't practically farm it... so they became thinly populated and lived a very sparse existence. I say "lived" because I assume that many have been inducted into more urban settings by now.
Without real estate as an issue ( egalitarian societies tend to share resources when they are available, and move on when they are not) the Aborigine were easily pushed back by the English Crown and promptly forgotten as a part of Australia's history, with the efforts being made to emphasize the history since colonization.

The Maori, on the other hand... arrived much later (the very word aborigine means original!) and descended from Polynesian sailors in the last few hundred years. They settled in a much more forgiving landscape and colonized it, and refused to be readily pushed back and forgotten by the (later) British colonists that arrived in the last bit more than a couple of hundred years. The Maori seem to be much more able to compete for property and are enjoying a much more culturally enviable position than their Australian counter parts. They farmed the landscape, built permanent settlements... Spoke a common language, and over all were in a much better position to "hold off" the European invasion. They understood the concept of property, and have maintained a considerable portion of their own culture. Frankly, I am surprised they didn't kill the British off completely despite the lack of artillery.

What most intrigued me? Probably the fact that the Maori were the people who settled new Zealand at all. Somehow I felt that the Polynesian people were from someplace farther away- I really did not grasp the propinquity of Asia, the Pacific islands, and I had somehow managed
to have imagined this area to be more isolated than it actually is... maybe someplace nearer to Antarctica or something, I guess. When I look at a map now, it makes perfect sense, of course.

The one thing that seems odd is that the Aborigine visually appear to be of Negro stock... somehow it doesn't seem likely that the came to Australia via Asia... not a lot of Negroes there. That part of the generally accepted explanation doesn't quite fit with what I see. The aborigine people seem absolutely nothing like Asian in any way that I can imagine at all. Perhaps somebody else will offer a different explanation at some point???

I have really got to hand it to the people of England. They were thinking when they started sending convict after convict to live in Australia. I'm sure that Philip, the Governor-in-chief is not surprised that there is a high amount of drinking, gambling, and murder in New South Wales. I was not surprised to hear of all of the butchering that went on down under. What did he as well as England think was going to happen when countless numbers of convicts were sent to live on an island? I just found the first few chapters of this odd because it seems like the settlement of Australia could have ended up on reality TV on that show called the great American race, or whatever it is. All of these different religous denominations and countries had set out to find gold and about as important find people to follow in their religion. Since all of those smaller countries were having difficulties at home the expeditions were sent home and low and behold England was the first ones there, aside from the Aboriginies of course. Anyway I just found that funny, and I am also impressed at how people deal with all of the garbage of everyday life--binge drink. Some of those people might fit in really well in a college community.

After reading some of the blog comments I found that I was unable to comment on any of them. That can be expected with the first lecture in any course because, as we all know, the first lecture of a course always starts kicking over some stones, if you will, on new ideas. Which is good because according to that little quiz we took I know next to nothing. This first lecture was quite an eye-opener for me because I know absolutely nothing about either country. After listening to some of the lecture I started to draw some parallels between their history and our history. In our history we have Native Americans, and in their history they have Aborigines and Maori. Australia and New Zealand had trading regiments with European nations, and in our history we are a former European nation. Australia and New Zealand were discovered by naval explorations probably unintended, and if I do recall Columbus set sail in 1492 and discovered America. Ok, islands off the coast of America, but for the sake of argument I am going to go with that. In my notes I have noted that the Aboriginal peoples had to make subsequent adaptations to arid and poor lands, and when American settlers started to explore and settle the frontier they too had to deal with an arid landscape. As lecture would have the Maori and Aboriginal peoples had views on warfare and geopolitical policy, and if I do recall a couple of years ago America bombed Iraq with some help from Australia. I believe today in class someone brought up the fact that there were hundreds of Aboriginal dialects, and in this country there is also a variety of spoken languages. In looking back through the notes it appears that Australia and New Zealand are to some extent America's little brother walking in big brother's footsteps. That is an awfully big shadow to be walking in, but I could tell you where I would rather be right now.

Lecture One was a great introduction to Australia and to New Zealand as far as the geography, people, and history go. Dr. Isern showed us maps in the “typical” colors for each of the country, and when he showed New Zealand in green, it reminded me of a saying that Kiwis have about themselves and their country: “Keen, Green and Clean” (in some order like that). We also got a really good history lesson on the Aborigines and the Maori from Australia and New Zealand respectively. The part of the lecture that I found most interesting was how Aborigines believe that their group started in Australia and did not come from anywhere else, where as Maori believe that they came over in their wakas (Maori word for canoes) from another Pacific Island. Both groups have such a diverse background and belief system that there seems to be more differences than similarities; which seems to go against the American view point that Australia and New Zealand are basically the same country. As we have already learned, Australia and New Zealand are very different countries, with very different groups of people who both happened to be colonized by the British. It was a very interesting lecture, and I have already grown in my knowledge of Australia and have been reaffirmed in some of the things I knew about New Zealand.

Yippy skippy,

The first lecture of this semester was a general overview that focused on the two native peoples in both Australia (Aborigines) and New Zealand (Maori). With a steady pace, it pointed more the differences than any similarities the two cultures might share. For example, the Aborigines had lived and settled in Australia for a much longer time before the Maori even settled in New Zealand. More to the point, the Aborigines believe that Australia is where they have always lived while the Maori believed they had sailed to New Zealand from their ancient homeland.

Enters the white man,

The British “discovered” and henceforth settled in these new found lands. However, what was strikingly interesting was the development of the two native cultures in response to these developments. It is true that many died because of the so called “fatal contact” but somehow their cultures survived. Most interesting was how the Maori managed to fend off the enemy by a prolonged underground warfare. With the Aborigines, it was clever killing off of livestock to try and impede European growth. In the end, they were never really treated as equals (until a long time afterwards).

Perhaps I slept through too much of the lecture, but I was curious as to how the Maori managed to acquire guns and where they developed the idea of building tunnels to escape from their besieged base camps. Is this because of their materialistic views?

"I felt the cast and dialog made up for the lack of action and special effects." -Tiffany Normandin reviewing the film "The Dish"

I look at it the other way around. A lot of movies skimp on dialogue and plot, relying heavily on "eye candy" for their success. The best movies do both. I occasionally watch older movies like Casablanca, The Seven Samurai, or Lawrence of Arabia that contain their fair share of action, but devote more time to plot, relationships, and character development. I should warn you though, Lawrence of Arabia is something like 4 hours long. Just when you think it should be ending there is a 10 minute intermission in the film. I had to watch it over a span of three days.

-Dylan

The first lecture dealt mainly with the “native” peoples of Australia and New Zealand. The Aborigines believe they originated on Australia while the Maori remember coming to New Zealand. The Aborigines had a low population density and over 200 spoken languages when the Europeans arrived. The Maori, however, had a high population density and on language. These facts made their interactions with the Europeans very different. The Aborigines were very isolated and resistant to change. Because of this, Europeans didn’t understand them and suppressed them. The Maori on the other hand were a synthetic people and adapted easily. They integrated pieces of European life into their own so the Europeans understood them more easily. Also, one language allowed them to put up a fierce resistance which allowed them to keep their way of life.

I thought it was very interesting how a culture’s ability to adapt to outsiders can have such a profound affect on their own culture’s survival. The Aborigines and even many of the Native Americans in North America resisted change. As a result, the Europeans did everything possible to wipe out their way of life, including kidnapping children. The Maori, on the other hand, adapted and integrated parts of European culture into their own culture and used this to “defeat” The European and somewhat preserve their own culture. As Dr. Isern said, their ability to adapt allowed them to never put down their arms and stop fighting to keep their culture.

One thing that intrigued me was the Australian’s thoughts about the Aboriginal fighting. The Europeans didn’t think that the Aborigines resisted at all even though the Aborigines destroyed wagon trains. That took me by surprise.

When we walked into class on the first day we were given a worksheet with simple questions like what is the capital or the name of the rugby team. I personally did horrible. Now that I realized my lack of knowledge for Australia and New Zealand, I was interested in finding out about the land, native people, and culture, as well as what makes these neighboring lands so different from each other.
I did not know that older Australians appreciated Americans more than the older New Zealanders due to geographical location during WWII, or that the Aborigines were less receptive to Europeans than the Maori. Europeans brought new ideas as well as sicknesses to the Aborigines and tried to trade worldly items to the natives who did not value stuff like them. The Europeans must have thought these Aborigines were crazy because they did not value stuff, there was no person in charge of the tribes, and there were so many different tribes and languages. The Maori had a better relationship with the Europeans because they were not as prone to the disease and valued the trade of items. The Europeans must have been relived to find out that there was one common language for the land and people were more tolerable and willing to trade and accept the Europeans. Soon after, the Europeans did not get along so well with either land. In Australia, they forced the natives to work stations and as stock women. In New Zealand, there were many political issues including the Musket War.
If I got a chance to ask a question, I would want to know how things got resolved between the Europeans and Native people and how the few remaining natives feel about Europeans in a general sense today.

Recently, I chose to look at three issues of the New Zealand Herald online. I first started looking last week around January 18th. Obviously, the first thing I chose to look at was the Sports column. I chose to read an article about cricket entitled " Black Caps Cup Build-Up in Doubt." That fact that the article was about cricket was intriguing itself because I have never watched or knew much about the game. In the article, there seemed to be some problems between New Zealand and India in terms of India returning next summer before the start of the World Cup. There was another article heading the news sections entitled “ Just Three Queen St. Trees Saved." Apparently, a council had decided to upgrade Upper Queens Street in Auckland City, which entails the removal of 17 exotic trees. However, it seems like from what the article suggested the trees would be replaced with other exotic trees. After looking over the newspaper for a few days, I felt a real sense of culture in New Zealand. The article on the exotic trees was very interesting. Here in the mid-west, there's not too much exotic to capture, more historic buffalo. It depicted the beautiful landscape that has been described in class. Also, I felt a strong sense of community throughout the land and also dedication in terms of both articles. Sports and the land are very important it seems. Also, preserving the culture, whether it's saving trees or keeping sports traditions alive, it all was very interesting. By taking the class, I felt I knew a lot about the landscape and culture, which added to the understanding of the articles.

The film Rabbit Proof fence is the compelling tale of three young girls taken from their home and placed in a facility for the re-education of "half caste" children. Most of the other children at the facility have come to accept what has happened and cooperate, for the most part, with their captors. Molly, the eldest of the three, escapes taking her two charges with her. Throughout there long trek back to their home in Jambara the girls are haunted by weariness, thirst, hunger, and an Aborigine tracker intent on rounding the girls up and returning them to the facility. The decision to follow the rabbit-proof fence, though seemingly very clever on the part of Molly, preves near disastrous for the trio. Following the misleading advise given to the girls by a man they cross paths with, Gracie, the middle child, is taken and so only the other to actaully reach Jambora where there "protectors" await them.

I found this film to be both shocking and eye-opening. I didn't realize how recently these laws were abolished nor had i been able to conceive how traumatic the situation really was. As stated in class by another student, it is one thing to read about these events in a text book and another to actually see them. The sense of loss by the children's family, the girls' longing to return home, and the sense of failure of the British "protectors" are equally heartbreaking. I was also disturbed by the use of an Aborigine tracker to hunt down and capture the girls. I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised, seeing as how early Americans used Native American tracker to locate Indian tribes and the both the British and Americans use them against eachother during the Revolutionary War. I would strongly recommend this film as it was both interesting to watch and short enough that it avoided feeling drawn-out and tedious.

Current Australian Open Matchups (Seeds in parentheses):

Men's Singles - Semifinals
Roger Federer SUI (1) vs. Nicolas Kiefer GER (21)
David Nalbandian ARG (4) vs. Marcos Baghdatis CYP

Women's Semifinals
Justine Henin-Hardenne BEL (8) vs. Maria Sharapova RUS
Amelie Mauresmo FRA (3) vs. Kim Clijsters BEL (2)

The main topic of the first lecture was to gain a greater insight into the history of the people who first settled in Australia and New Zealand. More in depth, the first lecture compared but more so contrasted the Aborigine group who were said to be the first that settled in Australia and the Maori who were said to be the first that settled in New Zealand.

These two groups differed from one another in almost all aspects of their life. The Aborigine settled Australia long before the Maori settled in New Zealand. With the coming of Europeans in the late 1700's brought many changes both to the Aborigine and the Maori. Though the Aborigine did adapt customs of that of the Europeans, it was at a far more gradual rate compared to how the Maori people adapted European customs. The Maori were far more willing to trade with the Europeans than the Aborigine were. The reason for this was the Maori were far more resistant to the diseases that the Europeans brought than that of the Aborigine. The race relations between that of the Europeans and the natives of Australia and New Zealand differs as well. The people of Australia are far more open to the fact that the Aboririgne and the whites don't get along very well. The Maori and the whites of New Zealand may say that they don't have a race issue, but in fact they have the same problems as the Aborigine have.

I found the great culture diffrences between the Aborigine and Maori quite intersting due to the fact that they were seperated only by a rather small body of water. I also thought that it was quite interesting that Maori people didn't cross over to Australia. The Maori who were said to be such great ocean navigators did not do much more exploring once they discovered New Zealand.

Re-posted on Monday, January 30th.

-Dylan

Two peices of Aboriginal music were played as the opening to Lecture 1. I was challenged. I knew I had to changed some preconceived notions on what it means to be primitive and what it means to be civilized.

The Aboriginies and the Maori have very different origin histories and live in very different environments. Consequently the two societies developed very different cultures and did not react the same way to British colonization.

The Maori were immigrants who arrived in NZ 800- 1,000 years ago from Polynesia. The land was small and fertile. The developed a culture that paralleled the British colonizers. The Aborigines were considered native to their land, arriving 40,000 to 60,000 years ago. They adapted to their vast, arid land by becoming nomadic hunters and gatherers. The did not develop a stratified, materialistic society as the Maori.

The lecture helped me deal with some of my own ingrained assumptions about the Aborigine and Maori peoples. I also learned that just because a culture is simple and nonmaterialistic does not necessarily mean it is less advanced. I need to open up and think outside my own world view in order to understand the Aborigine people.

The discussion on Tim Flannery and Environment Determinism was interesting. I would like to read his book and explore it more. Looking at history from an enviromental perspective is important. Comparing and contrasting the two unique enviromental situations makes this clear.

I am curious about the 200 plus languages of the Aborigines. I am aware that every year over 100 languages go extinct. How many of the Aborigine's languages have survived extinction? Do the Maori still speak their native language?
Sandy Christianson

Having never been to Australia or New Zealand, I took this class hoping to get that excitement of learning about a place that everyone is envious of. Right off the bat Dr. Isern played into my stereotypical notions of what Australia and New Zealand were - the music, the mood. While I know I did not do well on the preliminary survey of outback knowledge, I know I have already learned enough to make up for it.

We have started off studying the origins of the people and their uses of the land. Australia being settled by the Aborigines who claim to be natives of the land, have been in Australia much longer than the Maori in New Zealand who do not claim to be natives. The two groups are very different in culture and ideals which makes for a wonderfully unique region. The Aborigines have a much richer culture based on their use of the land for a longer period of time. The Maori people, having settled New Zealand much later, are still considered a young group. Comparing languages is just one way in which to statistically view this. Along with cultural differences, their contact with Europeans was completely different.

What stands out in my mind regarding both Australia and New Zealand is their same reactions to native-white relations that the British and later American colonies faced. As much as I don't want to admit it, cultural genocide with a later movement towards native self-determination seems to be a common trait of colonization. As still young countries Australia and New Zealand seem to be moving much more quickly through the painstaking process of reclaiming their native identity.

I'm interested in what the rest of the semester will bring in terms of comparing and relating the two very distinct and unique cultures of the "down under" region.

The lecture began as an overview of where the inhabitants originated from and what the landscape consisted of. Dr. Isern then explained how these people used the land and the impact they had on nature. A comparison of the Aborigine and Maori culture and society showed great differences. This lead into how these completely different cultures mixed with European contact. With a final conclusion on the race relations of present time.

I thought it was interesting about the differences between the Maori and Aborigine culture and society. The fact that the Maori had hierarchy, stratification, and the people were materialistic; while the Aborigines were the compete opposite. And the big difference between the two was the population density. Seems logical to me that societies would develop the differences as personal contact increased.

A point was brought up in lecture that the Aborigines speared the grazing European animals as an attempt to keep the Europeans from spreading onto thier land. It was siad in class that the Aborigines did this as a way of saying this is our land, but rather, my opinion on this is that this was a siege tactic. They understood that resources are required to sustain life. As Dr. Isern said, the Aborigines never attacked the pastoral stations, but they had a strategy to keep supplies from getting to these stations….

Hi Im tony gehrig from fargo. Im a history ed maj in my third year.

This movie takes place in a small town in present day New Zealand. The town consists mainly of Maori descendants whom still bleakly hold on to the way of their ancestors. In an attempt to bring back the ways of his ancestors, Koro, cheif of the town, begins his attempt to find a new chief for when he dies. Blinded by the ancient customs, Koro overlooks his own granddaughter who posses the strength to bring back the Maori way of life.
The movie begins with the birth of Koro's first two grandchildren, a boy and a girl. The boy, who was said to become cheif once Koro's reign as cheif is over, dies at birth. The girl survives and is named Paikea, after her ancient ancestor who was said to have rode on a whale's back and brought the first Maori people to New Zealand. Since it is taboo for a female to become cheif, Paikea is a disappointment to Koro from her birth. In an attempt to find a strong leader, Koro beings teaching the young boys of the town the ways of the Maori warriors of the past. Even though the skills of Paikea far surpass that of the boys, her grandfather still looks down upon her. Without ruining the ending, only through a miracle is Koro able to see his grandaughter as the one who is too lead their people.
Whale Rider was a surprise to me. For not being the type of movie I usually enjoy, I found it interesting. The movie does a great job of showing how the Maori way of life is all but gone from New Zealand, but also does a good job of showing the viewer many customs and beliefs of the Maori people.