Backbencher

The newspaper I reviewed was the "New Zealand Herald". This newspaper seems very comparable to an American newspaper such as the "New York Times". A couple different articles stood out to me. The first was an article about bluff oysters, which apparently a very valuable commodity over there. The article talked of how the oysters are very large this year, and that the harvest should be a profitable one. This article intrigued me because it deals with how New Zealand uses it's natural resources, and I am a farmers son, so it interests me. This article deals with what we just got done talking about in class, economics. Judging from this article, oysters are an important natural resource to New Zealand, and probably bring in a lot of money.
The second article that interested me was an article about a singer named Liam Finn. Finn, a New Zealand rock singer, is going on tour with Pearl Jam in April. The tour is in the United States, and Finn will be the opening act for Pearl Jam. Pearl Jam's lead singer Eddie Vedder is a long-time friends of the Finn family, and is a fan of New Zealand rock. This interested me because I am a huge Pearl Jam fan. I do not know any New Zealand bands, so this was interesting learning a rock singer from there.
I also read an article about Fidel Castro stepping down as leader of Cuba. It was interesting to read New Zealand's point of view on the situation. The article basically said Castro was a dictator who has ruled cruelly over Cuba for nearly fifty years. This is basically the same thought as American newspapers, which is interesting.
The oyster harvest was fascinating to me because that is something that would probably not make national news here. It says to me that New Zealand really values their natural resources. I also noticed that many of the articles on the web-page were positive in nature, which makes me believe New Zealander's are an optimistic people.

The book I have chosen to do a review on is "The Anzac Illusion" and was written by E.M. Andrews. This book is an in-depth analysis of Australian-British relations before, during, and immediately after World War I. Before the war Australian's, for the most part, felt they were part of the British empire, rather than as independent Australians. They believed Britain was the best country in the world and that Britains were the best people in the world. This all changed when the war got underway. The Australian soldiers got to meet the British soldiers face to face, and fought with them. They quickly realized the British were not the "best" in the world and it kind of took the wind out of the Australians sail. They had believed before that the British were almost like a mythic people who were the best in the world at everything. When they fought with them and realized they were just as good fighters, if not better in many cases, their opinions of the British changed dramatically. They began respecting the British less, while also developing a sense of pride in being "Australian". The British also felt they were better than the Australian's, and this angered the Australian's. As the war progressed, national pride in "Australia" continued to grow, while pride in Britain continued to decline. By the end of the war the majority of Australian's citizens, including people who did not serve in the war, had developed a tremendous sense of pride in themselves, as Australian's. The theme of this book is World War I destroyed Australia's thought of being members of the British Empire, while strengthened their thought as being Australian's.
I felt this book was put together very well. There were pictures throughout the book, which allowed me to put a name with a face, which was very helpful. The book gave me a history of how Australia began to think more independently, and began to rely on Britain less. The book was a bit wordy at times, but the overall flow was good and it was very educational.

Lecture 4 was based on the theme of Convicts and Pilgrims. Dr. Isern gave us a tour of modern day Sydney, Australia where some of the first convicts landed in the late 1700s. At this time, England had the American colonies rebelling against sending convicts to Georgia. The solution prior to sending criminals to Australia was overcrowded hulks, floating offshore from England. The incorrigibles, they were sent to Norfolk Island also known as the Botany Bay of Botany Bay. Ironically, the convicts that were banished from England were really not the hardened criminals that one might suspect a country to try and rid itself of. Instead, England sent the political rebels, petty crimes only after too many offenses and the subculture criminals that had organized crime of mostly theft. The development of a vocabulary came with the life of the convicts. Some of which the terms are still understood today like the term "government stroke." After some time, convicts could be lent out to wealthier people to work for them.In New Zealand, there was a pilgrimage and a systematic formation of the colonization. One problem that that Edward Gibbon Wakefield, the man with the vision for New Zealand, had been with the Maori already had made claims to the land. New Zealand was formed mostly on small parcels of land for settlers with farm workers brought in for labor and a cultured class of landowners. With the discovery of Gold in Otago and Wesland, a less civilized group of prospectors disrupted Wakefield's dream of a upper class New Zealand.
I found it interesting that Dr. Isern mentioned on Norfolk Island, being developed for the holdings of a "dangerous"breed of convicts, that there is only one known murder or serious crime and it was a murder some time ago by a New Zealander not originally from the island. I also am curious to know if people actually tried to escape Norfolk Island. When it comes to gold rushes, does New Zealand and Australia have anything comparable to the ghost towns in North America? I know Dr. Isern showed a few pictures of abandoned mine shafts and caves that people lived in.

I recently watched the movie titled The Worlds Fastest Indian. This film was set in 1967 during the Vietnam War. Burt Munro, a likeable New Zealander whos insaciable thirst for speed brings him to Bonneville, Utah to finally see how fast his bike can really go. He has dedicated his life to speed and making his 1927 Indian Motorcycle go fast. Although his body especially his heart isnt what it used to be he still can compete with the big boys. Burt shows up to America ready to beat the worlds fastest bike record completely unprepared. On his journey he touches everyone he meets and makes many new friends. The ending is quite nice becasue burt ends up setting the record at over 200 mph. I really enjoyed this film I thought Sir Anthony Hopkins did an amazing job playing Burt Munro and really made this magical true story come to life. Also to make it more interesting there was lots of New Zealand references hidden throughout the movie. You can really tell that he is proud to be a kiwi, and that he still is not a big fan of Britain because everytime someone asks him if he is from there he gets very angry and tells them off. In all I thought this movie was awesome and the story of Burt Munro is something I would like to research some more.

"Settlement: Convicts and Pilgrims," was the title of the fourth lecture. We talked about the first places the convicts landed, and we looked at some pictures. Along with that we discussed the mining on the land. Chinese men without families followed earlier gold minors, they lived in very small caves, and ored simply ore sites. I found it very interesting that Australians house such a fear of some sort of 'Asian overflow.'
Moving on in the lecture Mr. Isern presented the topic of Mythisotries in Australia and New Zealand. The history of the two countries changed upon the request of the occupants of Australia and New Zealand.
The background of the transportation of convicts was discussed. Georgian England was having serious crime problems, so they decided to ship all of the 'scoundrels' to a different country, halfway around the world. My favorite part of the convict transport was the decision to ship the unmanageable convicts in Australia to 'Van Diemens Land.' The idea was to just continue to ship them further and further away instead of trying to manage it without the use of a ship.
New South Whales was the first convict town. The convicts were the social outcasts of England. Finally Australia began to get sick with the convict transport. The settlers there didn't want any more of Englands unwanted.
From there we discussed the colonization of New Zealand. It was very different from the settlement of Australia. New Zealand was planned, there were no convicts in New Zealand, New Zealanders were much better then 'that!' The settlers were only going to get small portions of land, the land was sold at a price high enough to keep unwanted people out, but low enough to allow good people in. The goal was to reproduce English life, only better. But the pastoralists came in and went against the grain. The idea of a perfect community was gone, pastoralists would have basically nothing to do with it. Then Gold was found and the life of settlers would never be the same again.

The fourth lecture in the series, Settlement: Convicts and Pilgrims, was another lecture discussing the settlement of Australia and New Zealand. The lecture started with different pictures that Dr. Isern has taken throughout his adventures. Dr. Isern also started the lecture off with the idea that historians are myth makers and myth builders really. We then moved on to the belly of the lecture which was about the movement of the convicts from England to Australia. The movement of the criminals was due to the suspension of transportation between America and England and the fact that England was becoming over populated rather fast. Dr. Isern went through a list of rather funny names for different kinds of criminals, which I found rather funny, and then moved on to discuss where the criminals were sent. From Newcastle to Norfolk Island, to Botany Bay, the criminals were dispersed across the land in all different directions. The suddenly, like with all land that is rather new in finding, gold was discovered . This, as Dr. Isern stated, brought a lot of ‘undesirables’ which brought a growth that was not expected.


This lecture was rather interesting. I got a kick out of vocabulary of the conflict life. It’s fun to see the different names that were made for the convicts at the time. It’s also interesting to know that most of these convicts really were just petty criminals. There were the worst of the worst on Botany Bay, but most were just whores and people that stole a bit. I wonder what it would be like if America were to send the same type of criminals as England did to an Island off in the ocean. Now that would be history.

The fourth lecture entitled Settlement: Convicts and Pilgrims began with pictures of Sydney and other places around Australia. Dr. Isern then went on to talk of how Australia was the place that England wanted to send some of its convicts . The first place that the convicts were sent was New South Wales, then Van Diemen's Land, and finally Western Australia. Other reasons that the convicts were sent to Australia were the industrialization, urbanization, and birthrate in England; the country could not keep up with the people who were living in it. I loved getting to know the different specialized words for the convicts who were in Australia, such as Bushranger, which is a person who ran away and returned to a life of crime. Eventually people stopped wanting to send convicts to Australia so that more respectable people could move there instead, so convict resettlement was disbanded.

It was completely different in New Zealand; there they did not have convict settlement. A man named Edward Gibbon Wakefield thought of a planned settlement that he thought would work for New Zealand; even though he had never been there himself. Everyone who went to New Zealand were supposed to be a cultured class of people with strong civil institutions who would be landowners and hire laborers who would in turn become a cultured class of individuals. Eventually pastoralism would change; the people began to put their money into the animals and wool and not into the land. This change was what Lady Barker wrote about in her book Station Life in New Zealand. I think that it would be interesting to learn more about what New Zealand means to people of different generations; how the older people feel about it and how the younger people of the country compare to the older people's view.

"On the Beach" is a novel written by Nevil Shute. It tells of the aftermath of an all-out nuclear war. The setting is in Australia and seems to be one of the only places in world to escape the bombs and deadly radioactive material floating their way. But they will only survive for a little while because global wind currents are slowly pushing the radioactive material their way killing everything in its path. The survivors detect a Morse code radio signal coming from the United States, giving them hope that there is some survivors, but the signal came from an American nuclear submarine. The sub continues to look for survivors in locations around Queensland and the Northern Territory but finds no survivors. The captain, Dwight Towers leaves a girl, Moira Davidson, to whom he has become fond of recently and continues with his search. Although his wife and children in the U.S are dead, he refuses to buy into that fact and continues to buy them gifts and writes them letters.

The Australian government makes an agreement to give citizens cyanide pills and injections so when the radiation comes, they will not have to suffer for a long time. They can just take their pills and injections and kill themselves instead. Although in spite of all the terrible things happening, the people continue to live their lives best they can and enjoy the small pleasures and continue their usual activities. People would plant gardens that they will never see sprout. The end of the book ends as it originally foretold, the end has to come and it did.

This novel was particularly interesting because it showed how people react to their own lives when they know that they will have to accept their own death because of the slow moving clouds. It was a little different book because there always seemed to be no hope, unlike movies and other books where they have a little sight of hope and eventually find a way to execute a way to survive. I would never be able to understand what would go through one's head, especially the younger generation in these circumstances. I also thought it was particularly sad that the Australian government gave their people cyanide pills so they could kill themselves. Although it is a good gesture, I am not convinced that it is the morally correct thing to do. Perhaps they could find a way to survive, but instead killed themselves because of the government handing out cyanide pills.

Lecture five, Economics: Empire and Dependency, centered largely around Donald Denoon's application (or adaptation) of dependency theory to the histories of Australia and New Zealand. Dependency theory involves colonies shaping their economies around the needs of a dominant country. Both colonial economies were established to send products back to England. As a result, both countries were still heavily involved in markets that suited Britain's needs until the 1970s and, especially, the 1980s. Clearly, the cultures and national identities of the countries today can be traced back to a century and a half of dependency. During this ''British Century,'' both countries were very successful. The nature of dependent markets, however, ensured that neither country had diversified production or the ability to serve domestic markets, which was potentially devastating to both at the end of the twentieth century, when the countries were on their own for the first time.

In colonial times, Australians and New Zealanders both made a living off ''the sheep's back,'' literally as sheep shearers and producers of commodities that were shipped to Britain (wool, wheat, and later meats, with the advent of refrigeration). Both economies were born out of a colonial, commonwealth framework. The combination of a planned economy in New Zealand, with an unusual level of government welfare instilled a unique belief that the government has a large role to play in the maintenance of social justice. This provided New Zealand with a special foundation for economic development, centering on an equitable distribution of wealth. This all changed in the wake of the 1980s crisis, and New Zealand became the laboratory of free markets and privatization (as envisaged by Roger Douglas), as a state economy was no longer viable in a liberal global economy. Although hugely unpopular, New Zealand's economic, governmental, and cultural revolutions have been able to stall a huge economic downturn. Much larger, and therefore more abundant in resources and workers, colonial Australia featured similar occupations and products as New Zealand. Also in contrast, Australians have a continued hope in the development of their country, seeing new frontiers to be conquered.

Today, New Zealand produces high-end products, and the republic generally focuses on horticulture, viticulture, and hydroelectric development. New Zealand's economy in general emphasizes exports. The renaming and introduction of the kiwifruit (previously the ''Chinese Gooseberry'') is symbolic of New Zealand's new role in the global economy. Largely lacking raw materials, NZ markets have been dependent on the creation and distribution of specialized products that are fairly expensive, but small and easy to transport to a global economy. Australia today is dominated by agriculture and the pursuit of resources. Agricultural enterprise is diverse, and people participate in horticulture, livestock farming, mixed farming (wheat and sheep), and pastoralism. Because of the global scarcity of natural resources, Dr. Isern predicted that Australia's economy will soon eclipse the New Zealand economy, because of the abundance of raw materials in Australia.

Personally, I thought it was very interesting that Australia considered Asian success to be a great threat to their economy, but today are seeking them as trade allies over the European Union. I always assumed that they still looked to Europe as major trading allies, which is perhaps the result of Eurocentric thinking. Looking closer, geographically, is clearly the best idea for both export-centered countries, especially in this age of global markets and competition.

Lecture 4 was both the settlement of Australia and New Zealand. We also covered the great myth history of Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, we learned that there were convicts that were sent from Europe. William McNeil and Austin Fife made up aspects of history of the countries, which were essentially myths. Three colonies of convicts were established: New South Wales in 1788, Van Diemann's Land in 1812, and Western Australia in 1829. These convicts were required to work and were rewarded with land if their work was “Good enough.” Agriculture in this time was very difficult. Ranching and different methods came about during this time. Ancestors of Australians were mostly convicts which is still important in Australian history today. New Zealand was kind of like the “ideal society.” It was a systematic colony, well behaved families, which came from the great Edward Gibbon Wakefield. Also, we talked about the five colonies which include Port Nicholson, Canterbury, Otago, Nelson, and Taranaki. The gold rush then played a major factor, overwhelming the economic growth and hardship. Unlike Australia, New Zealand did not want anything to do with convicts in their ancestry. Their pride would obviously diminish and would be looked at in a strangely manner by others.

I was very interested in the settlement of these two. I had no clue Australians take pride in coming from convicts. Today of course, things change and people would not like it if they are related to convicts. Also the colonies that were established and information about them was something I did not know. But one question, why are these two so different from each other, but so closely related, not just with this lecture but with the previous lectures as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISB6Cs8aqlE

Check out this crazy video. One of my Aussie friends sent it to me. It's interesting what other people in other parts of the world think about us. I think the video is kind of funny, but the comments posted under it on youtube were a little more insulting. It makes you think about generalizations you've heard about people in other countries.

There are other videos by these guys about Americans. I didn't realize we were that interesting.

The title of Lecture 4 is Settlement: Convicts & Pilgrims. The main theme of this lecture was how Australia's mythistory was affected by the country being colonized by convicts. Convicts were rounded up and sent to Australia more to get them out of England than for any real desire to colonize Australia; it was convenient and far away. British ships were sent to Botany Bay filled with cargos of criminals that had been overcrowding Georgian England. It doesn't seem that a whole lot of thought was put into this new colony because the First Fleet landed with too little food and tools that were too weak to handle the tough soil. England had to send supplies to the fist colonies for a while before they were able to eke out enough to get by on their own.
We also talked briefly about how the discovery of gold affected the plans of the settlements in Australia. Some pictures related to the mining in Thomson Gorge were shown and we discussed how the practices and machines of mining affected the land.

I was most interested by our discussion of how a new sense of inarticulate patriotism is being developed by the younger generations in Australia. I agree that this might be similar to what students around here feel: that we are proud of our state/school/etc. not because of great things they've done, but just because we have grown up knowing these things and loving them for their familiarity.

I would be interested to know if origins wear off, or we just develop a new sense of where we came from.

Lecture 4 was "Settlement: Convicts and Pilgrims." We found that Australia began as a country of convicts sent there from Great Britain. The first convicts were sent to a certain rocky area of Australia known as Botany Bay. The British did also settle other areas besides Botany Bay, such as Van Dieman's Land , New South Wales, and the last area Western Australia. New Zealand was not settled by convicts, but was a planned colonization. The government provided small areas of land that needed to bought for a certain price. The British had the idea to make New Zealand a smaller version of Great Britain. The discovery of gold hindered the British’s plans because of the immigration of Asians, and Americans to area.

I liked this lecture because I enjoy listening about the convict heritage of Australia. The Aussie’s are very proud of their convict heritage while New Zealanders look down upon a convict heritage. I also enjoyed hearing about the British's plan to create a New Britain in New Zealand. It is kind of similar to the United States problems with illegal immigrants. History has seemed to be consistent. Where there is money, there are people. The gold of New Zealand can be symbolized today as the American economy. There seems to be no way to control immigration.

Lecture 4 dealt with the colonization of the lands of Austrailia and New Zeland. Originally Australia was settled by convicts that Britain sent there in sort of a national cleansing of Britain. The original area settled by these convicts was Bottany Bay which still is known by this name today. Although this was the main area of settlement to begin with other parts of Australia were settled such as Van Dieman's Land, New South Wales, and Western Australia. However even those these were originally prison colonies other economic opportunities tended to bring in other people as well in search of prosperity, over time leading to the British Commonwealth coming into power throughout the region. New Zeland was actually founed as a law abiding colony for the British colonoists, the land from NZ was actually sold to farmers and ranchers to cultivate and manage the land as a agricultural asset for the main land of Britain, but with the discovery of Gold there, those plans tended to be changed as people from many nations began to come in as part of the gold rush, many of these immigrants just happened to be chinese people which in contrast is very similar to the US gold rush in California as that particular gold rush also brought in a load of chinese immigrants. Overall I did think this lecture was quite interesting especially in learing about how the 2 countires were settled its fascinating to see that even those these 2 countries are so close geograpically and settled by the same country that they were settled in such different ways.

Matt Liese

This brilliant, powerhouse drama starts off with three soldiers who moved up to court martial status at the end of the Boer War. The first scene starts out in the court room where these three court martials are being tried for murder on a Boer soldier. These court martials killed a Boer soldier due to the Boer soldiers killing one of their fellow commanders. The three court martials are defended by Major Thomas, which is a small town solicitor that knows nothing about this case. He is only given one day to prepare for this grueling court case. The court brings in previous martials that have also ambushed and killed many Boer soldiers. The movie flashes back and forth, looking at most of the ambushes of the Boer soldiers. These previous court martials were never guilty for their actions, for that matter not even tried. The current court martials end up being guilty of murder. Two of them are sentenced to death. The other martial is sentenced to life in prison. The movie ends with a line of soldiers shooting at the two martials in chairs. This is a very old school way of executing their prisoners.

Being a war type movie, I really enjoyed it. At first, I was a little confused, because it took a little bit of time to jump right into the main scenario, which was the killing and murdering of Boer soldiers. I also liked the flash backs of what the previous court martials were doing. It wasn’t just the previous soldiers that murdered Boer soldiers. The previous martials did as well. These didn’t get tried, which made the current court martials angry and disappointed. I recommend this to all, especially those who like war-like movies.

Once upon a time, on a dairy farm in a faraway land, there lived two lovers, Lucinda and Rob. These two lovers lived with their cows, which were of great value and prosperity. Rob works hard milking the cows while Lucinda works around the house. Everything is going great and they are in love. Rob then proposes to her. Even though Lucinda is very surprised, she starts to worry that the, spark if you will, may fade away from their love. She then tells her best friend, Drosophillia. On the way, she runs over a mysterious old, old Maori woman. She tries to help the old woman out, but all the woman says is Keep Warm. Lucinda then strolls into town to tell Drosophillia the news. They talk about it and Lucinda returns home. When Rob and Lucinda are sleeping, their quilt is magically stolen. In the morning, Lucinda finds the old woman with it. She then puts Rob through a series of tests to see if the love is still there. While she is worried about her relationship, she sees the old Maori woman with her quilt late at night. Lucinda then decides to give away their cows to get this quilt back. Rob is furious and leaves her. Lucinda gets the cows back by giving up her ring that Rob gave her. By this time, Rob is seeing Drosophillia. They actually get married. Lucinda tries to get him back by giving him one of her most prized possessions, a box of old children shoes and sandals. Drosophillia throws them away in a lake. Rob finds out what Drosophillia did and in short, gets back together with Lucinda. They seem to live happily ever after.

At first, I thought this movie was a little awkward. To tell you the truth, I didn’t want to continue watching it, but I did. It wasn’t too bad, just a little different. I really liked how the director made this old Maori woman have kind of like magical powers. People might have thought old Maori women have magical powers back in the day, because they have been around. I recommend this to most, but like I said, it is a little different, for me anyways.

Lecture 4 focused on the settlement of Australia and New Zealand. Dr. Isern shared more pictures of mines and different settlement sites and also went into some detail and description about authority in both Australia and New Zealand. I though it was very interesting how he talked about kids in Australia doing whatever they want and then compared them to New Zealand kids who would behave in a more civilized manner instead of being out of control. Dr. Isern also talked about William McNeill who wrote his dissertation on the potato, and explained how his history crosses global boundaries but doesn’t discount them. We also talked about background to transportation. The most interesting part of this section was the explanation about Hulks. Hulks were old ships that weren’t sea worthy any longer and were used as floating prisons for convicts. I can’t imagine what the conditions would have been like on those ships, and I can’t believe that a government would actually consider Hulks as an option for convicts. In lecture we also talked about Norfolk Island and how there is virtually no crime even though the people who live there are all descendents of criminals and convicts. Another really interesting fact is that people in the underworld in London would actually commit crimes because they hated how they were living and they wanted to get a free trip to Australia. Lecture 4 was good because I am a Criminal Justice Major and I enjoy talking about all the convicts and how they were handled back in those days. As I said before, pictures also make lecture much more intesting.

Lecture 4 was titled "Settlement: Convicts and Pilgrims." Australia was started as a convict settlement. Convicts from Britain were shipped to Australia. The convicts had a slogan that they were being shipped to Botany Bay, the bay of New South Wales. They first went to the New South Wales colony, present day Sydney. They were also shipped to Van Dieman’s Land and Western Australia. The convicts were called political dissidents or Irish Republicans. The convicts worked 56 hours per week to build the community and some even worked on Sunday, their only day off for some cash or rum. The convicts that were incorrigibles were sent to islands of the coast, such as Norfolle Island. This island was considered the worst place, the Botany Bay of Botany Bay. Now the island has practically no crime, which is interesting but makes sense with its small population. The transport is an interesting way to punish/banish criminals, but it eventually became less effective. The convict transport ended between 1852 and 1868.

New Zealand had a very different type of settlement. It was settled by pilgrims with a planned colonization. The plan was to establish a class system and each class would work together to become a "Better Britain." New Zealand attracted the upper classes but not as many of the lower classes. Land was sold at a sufficient amount and pastoralism became a large industry. I found it interesting that a plan for New Zealand was formed before people started moving there. I would assume most colonies didn’t have a such an elaborate plan and just went with the flow.

In lecture number four we discussed the myth history of Australia and New Zealand, the convict transportation and settlement of Australia, and the settlement of New Zealand. From mythology I learned about the convicts that were sent to Australia from Europe. There were three colonies of convicts established: New South Wales in 1788, Van Diemans Land in 1812, and Western Australia in 1829. Many convicts went through hardships while in Australia such as starvation and survival in the first fleet. They continued transporting people until they ended between 1850 and 1870 when the operation was canceled.

The planned colonization of New Zealand was very much different. The land was sold and farm workers were brought in to work the land. It almost seemed like they were molding what type of person they want living in the country. However, their perfect society was ruined when they discovered gold. As soon as gold was found, many people moved there in hope to make their fortunes in prospecting. I particularly liked the dysfunction or unconventional upbringing of Australia. I think it is neat how the Australians take pride in their convict heritage whereas New Zealand thinks the complete opposite. My question is if I had a family member whom was a convict would I look up or down on him, and why? Well the truth is I probably would look down on him because I have been raised to condone such things as criminal activity, not embrace it.

Lecture four dealt with the topics of the convicts and also the matter of colonization. The first part of the lecture we discussed the idea of history as mythistory. This is the idea that historians are really myth makers. From there we went on to talk about the first settlers and convicts of Australia and New Zealand. The convicts were sent to Australia for several reasons, one was the crime problem in England, and the other was the crowding of the hulks in the docks in England. The convicts were shipped away to alleviate the over-crowding problem and to attempt to slow down the crime rate. The convicts were a wide variety of people as well. They ranged from people who committed minor crimes such as theft, to murder to political dissidents. It seems like the convict system did not work as well as they intended. The convicts used slow work techniques that were referred to as 'Government Stroke'. Also they had to find new areas where to relocate the convicts who had a tendency to run away or committed additional crimes. From the convicts we went on to discuss the planned colonization of New Zealand. It was designed so that people would work parcels of land, and the profits from the land went to bring immigrants over from other countries to create another England so to speak.

I thought this was an interesting lecture. I enjoyed reading about the convict portion in Manning Clark's book, so it was nice to discuss it in further detail in class. I did not realize that the convict system could be compared to the slavery system in the United States. It makes sense in a way, but at the same time, the slaves had done no wrong and were forced in to slavery. The convicts on the other hand had broken crimes, so in theory it seems ok that they would be made to do work.

In this lecture we looked at the early European history of NZ and OZ, which is when I think most contemporaries would say that the nations we know as NZ and OZ started. Everyone has been bemoaning the lack of information on Aborigines. Well then I want to know what the American Indians were doing before we got here, because our nation's history doesn't have much to say about them until the British colonized here either. But, whatever.

There is apparently a stark contrast between the settlement of these two colonies. OZ was a penal colony as is well known so settlement was haphazard, and they ran into difficulties as the colony evolved into a place where settlers who weren't involved with crime desired to exploit the resources of the colony (convict labor included) for their own monetary gain. The question as to whether transportation was actually a punishment anymore was raised as people started to commit crimes just for the sake of being transported to Australia. So eventually prisoner transport was stopped, but the legacy of the former prisoners remained in the country and resulted in tensions between people born in residence and immigrants.

NZ seems to have been more of a laboratory experiment in planned settlement, as if one could shape the perfect society from the ground up. Just like the British to be overly confident in the superiority of their society. Unfortunately enough for them, people care more about gold and making a fortune than about some man's ridiculous notions about colonization. The gold rush threw the plan topsy turvy when good hardworking people of the colony watched skeezy transients haplessly stumble upon the equivalent of a years' earnings of gold.

oh yeah...mythistory.

We started this lecture discussing mythistory, which describes the historian's role in the creation of national myths, or belief structures. The founding myths of OZ and NZ are as nations of convicts and pilgrims respectively. OZ, founded as a prison colony, has over time transitioned into the autonomous nation with which we are now familiar. The original "colonists" were described in our notes as traditional dissidents and repeat convicts. The colonies implemented during Australia's early days were placed in New South Wales, Van Diemans Land and Western Australia. Economic opportunities brought other, non-convict, settlers to these areas and over time a desire for respectability and a aversion to more convict "transportations" led to a transition from a prison colony to becoming a recognized portion of the British Commonwealth. New Zealand, on the other hand, was founded as a planned colony meant to emulate the law-abiding British way of life. Overtime, the mythistory of New Zealand changed from that of a planned society to a belief that they constituted the ideal society. This belief, however, has not held true for the younger generation and they often draw their nationalistic pride from the land rather than social/legal systems. As was mentioned in class, this transition is not understood by the older generation which still adheres--most commonly--to the former view of NZ mythistory. I enjoyed discussing how history and myth combine to create national identities. As I said in class, one can definitely see correlations between the differing structures of OZ and NZ national myths and those of the US and Canada. I assume that we will draw upon the points made in this lecture many times throughout the remainder of the semester, but I also think they will benefit us in any historical research.

Lecture 4 is titled Settlement: Convicts & Pilgrims. The first part of this title comes from the English transportation of convicts to Australia. The reason for this transportation was because of the overcrowding prisons or "hulks," that were basically big ships of prisoners anchored away from shore. Australia consisted of three main convict colonies: New South Wales formed in 1788, also known as "Botany Bay," Van Diemen's Land formed in 1822 where the scum of the scum were sent, and Western Australia formed in 1829.

The convicts were comprised of many groups of people such as: Political dissidents (Irish republicans, Luddites, hardcore criminals, as well as some petty criminals (but not many)). Convict life had its own vocabulary and trades. Thieves that specialized in stealing baggage were known as Dragsneaks. Tillfriskers distracted store clerks and stole cash. Skinners were women who would entice men into a private place and make off with their clothes. Separate outposts for the incorrigibles were set up. They were along the coast: Newcastle, Port Macquarie, and Moreton Bay. Norfold Island was far away and known as the "Botany Bay of Botany Bay." Transportation abolition gave way due to the world-wide anti-slavery movement as well as endemic crime in Australia. Transportation ceased between 1852-1868 due to the Molesworth Committee.

NZ was settled by pilgrims with a planned colonization. Edward Wakefield devised a plan in which only small parcels of land were set aside for settlers and sold at a sufficient price which kept speculators out. It was a side note that Wakefield was a pervert and married/kidnapped a 15yr old girl. Land sales funded new immigration of people with "good character." Pastoralism grew on the felden with Marino sheep. Scottish herders were often wanted along with their herding dogs. Gold rushes in 1861 attracted the undesirables: Australians, Americans, and Chinese. A.H. Clark wrote a book about how when people enter a place they bring their baggage along with them.

This whole lecture had a great deal of talk about William McNeill's idea of Mythistory. I think that the history of OZ and NZ have definitely been a product of historians telling myths and stories passed on. I wonder if OZ and NZ become susceptible to this idea of Mythistory so well because it is more distant than all other colonies/empires before.

In lecture four we discussed the mythistory of Australia and New Zealand, the convict transportation and settlement of Australia, and the planned settlement of New Zealand. The first fleet with Arthur Phillip and Botany Bay were both covered, along with the growing settlements eventually leading to the end of transportation. The planned colonization of New Zealand was a much different story though. The land was sold and farm workers were brought in to work the land. They were trying to build a "cultured class of landowners, with strong institutions." However, their planned perfect society was soon tainted at the first word of gold and unwanted arrivals to the island. Today however, New Zealanders are still upheld as more English than the English.

I particularly liked the dysfunction or unconventional upbringing of Australia. The convicts drunkenly running the land and the Imperialists trying to uphold the laws, but soon finding some of the soldiers giving up on that idea as well. Soon after there would be the next generation of Australians and they would take pride in their convict heritage, as opposed to New Zealand where that wouldn't have been looked as highly upon. Comparatively, I thought that the settlement of New Zealand was rather boring after hearing about Australia, but maybe that's just because I'm an American.

Talbott Pollert

Lecture 4 was about the settlement of Australia and New Zealand. Australia, we found out, was settled by convicts that the British sent there. The British thought they were cleansing the homeland by evicting these convicts from the country. The Rocks was the area of Australia that was first settled. The area became to be known collectively as Botany Bay, and the area still holds that name today. At first the settlers had quite a bit of hardships to deal with, mainly the negative reactions to the land by the officers and starvation. The British did also settle other areas besides Botany Bay, such as Van Dieman's Land and New South Wales. The last area to recieve settlers/convicts was Western Australia in 1868. New Zealand, on the other hand, was not settled by convicts, but was a planned colonization. The government only provided small parcels of land for the settlers, which was sold at a sufficient price and farmers were brought in to work the land. The British wanted New Zealand to be like a mini Britian, only better. Everything went well there for a little bit and then the discovery of gold shot Britians plans to hell. With gold in the picture, New Zealand had a huge rush of immigrants, mainly the people that the British were trying to keep out (Australians, American, and the Chinese).
In this lecture I thought it was interesting that the Aussie's take pride in having a convict in there family because that makes them a true Australian, whereas in New Zealand it is considered very bad if you find one in your family tree. It's interesting how two countries both colonized by Britian can be so different from each other.

I thought that I had submitted this already but I was wrong. Lecture 3 is titled Discovery: Terra Incognita & Aotearoa. This section started out with the Vegemite Challenge. I personally didn't try any Vegemite or Marmite, but I did try the Tim Tams which were excellent. Dr. Isern sang Waltzing Matilda, Australia's national anthem, to us identifying different words as he went along. We discussed Beaglehole's definition of what makes a great explorer: Seamanship, Leadership, and Knowledge, all of which James Cook had. Magellan's interest in the spice trade helped him complete the circumnavigation of the world. It was this trip that brought about the concept that the Pacific was very vast and widely unexplored. It was the Dutch in 1581 and Dirk Hartog in 1616 who actually discovered Australia's west coast. Abel Tasman struck Van Dieman's Land in 1642. Dampier came across the west coast and struck Shark's Bay. Dalrymple published "fictional" books about this part of the world. James Cook led great voyages in the 1760s and 1770s and explored NZ and OZ. Jeffrey Blainey wrote The Tyranny of Distance discussing how distance shaped OZ's history and development. In modern times John Williamson asserts that he became native to Australia, and sang songs of Australia. Albert Namatjira also gives himself a sense of national identity by painting scenes of the outback such as gum trees. The thing that was most interesting about his paintings was that they were all from memory.

My only question for this lecture has to deal with how they navigated the dangerous oceans back in a time with no GPS, radar, and electronics. I guess I'm not too knowledgeable about the tools they used back then, but personally I think it would have been difficult and scary to travel days and days on the wide open ocean without the tools we have today.

From In the Heart of the Outback... by Barbara Hannay (Harlequin):

"You could probably do with a cup of tea after seeing all this."
"A cup of tea?" She shot him a puzzled glance.
"We can go down to the river and make billy tea before we start looking for the cattle"
.... Bryne had a billycan and all the makings for tea in his saddle bag...

Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things, but I would like to know what billy tea is. Anyone have a clue?

In lecture four, Dr. Isern discussed settlement of the convicts and pilgrims of Australia and New Zealand. He then went on to explain mythology, which is made up information regarding the history of countries such as Australia and New Zealand. William McNeil and Austin Fife made up aspects of history of the countries, which were essentially myths. From mythology we learned about the convicts sent from Europe to Australia. Three colonies of convicts were established: New South Wales in 1788, Van Dieman's Land in 1812, and Western Australia in 1829. Some convicts went through hardships such as starvation and survival in the first fleet before more were sent to Sydney Cove. Included among the convicts were political nonconformists such as Irish republicans. Transportation ended between 1850 and 1870. We then went on to talk about colonization of New Zealand where five planned colonies; Port Nicholson, Nelson, Taranaki, Otago, and Canterbury were established all around the country by 1850. Soon, New Zealand struck gold and brought in more immigrants to Otago and Westland producing an unplanned expansion of the population. Many came from Australia, America, and China and were labeled the "undesirables."

I found it interesting that many Australians take pride in knowing that they come from the family of a convict. Most people in our country and culture are embarrassed or ashamed of relatives or ancestors who have committed crimes. My question is what is so appealing about these convicts or for that matter being related to one? Perhaps this illustrates the line between the differences of the Australian culture and other cultures around the world.

Lecture 4 is entitled Settlement: Convicts and Pilgrims. In this lecture we talked about the settlement of both Australia and New Zealand and how their origins differ. Australia’s first Europeans settlers were convicts from Britain. They were let off the boats in present day Sidney and then began the task of setting up an economy. However the failure of agriculture led them to try other enterprises such as ranching. Australians to this day take pride in knowing that their ancestors were the convicts that England brought over.

New Zealand on the other hand was established on the ideals of a planned settlement where land was negotiated fairly with the native Maori. This idea of planned settlement has led New Zealanders to view that their origins created a nation that has more a “prefect” society.

I found this lecture interesting in how the origins of a country define its history. For example the U.S. and Canada were both British colonies, yet our history differs from that of Canada. And so it is with Australia and New Zealand.

-Ron LaMere

Lecture 4 is entitled Settlements: Convicts and Pilgrams. In lecture 4 we talked about the settlement of Australia and New Zealand by Europeans. The settlement of Australia began with the introduction of convicts from Britains prisons as the first permanent European settlers. The first settlers faced many hardships in trying to establish an agricultural economy, but found other opportunites in enterprises such as ranching. Today Australians take pride in knowing that their ancestors were convicts sent there by Britain.

However the settlement of New Zealand was seen as more of an organized settlement where they bargained fairly with the Maori to get land to set up settlements. However New Zealanders still believe that their origins have created a country where planned settlement has created a more "perfect" society.

This lecture was interesting in that i thought about how the origins of a country affect their history. Both the U.S. and Canada were former British colonies, yet our own history is much different from that of Canada. And so it is with Australia and New Zealand. Australia being founded by convicts and New Zealand being founded on a planned settlement idea

-Ron LaMere

NEW ZEALAND GEOGRAPHIC

This magazine was really interesting to look at and read. It had a lot a nature related articles that helped to give a good insight to that aspect of New Zealand. Much like National Geographic here, it is filled with high resolution pictures of various things.

This magazine lets you know a lot about New Zealand. If you are going to pick up a magazine about an area, my sguggestion would be to look at the ads. You can tell a lot about what people by what they are trying to sell. There were a surprising number of life insurance ads in here. Not sure what this implies, but it seems like a nice precautionary. There were also a lot of ads for whale watching. This must be something like an open bus tour in London, because they advertised it a lot.

There also articles about shooting stars and comets. This must have been a big thing that had happened during the particular month of this magazine's publication. There were some really fascinating pictures in this section. They spoke about endagered species, which was a little expected, and also glaciers and fire smoke.

Next we moved to a creepy museum with people made of wax. I barely looked at the pictures and didn't read this at all because that is just creepy to me. Then there was a huge article about deer hunting. This was really enjoyable since I religiously spend a lot of time hunting. I guess I was biased towards this and flipped to the page and read this first.

The article really captured the 'looking outward' feeling on Australia and New Zealand. There was plenty about shipping and anything in nature that needed the help of a boat to reach. This ranged from mussels, exploring islands, penguins, treasure hunting, and many more things aquaculture.

This was a very good read/look. I enjoyed this magazine and this really makes me want to travel to NZ for a few months. It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to get used to.

BREAKER MORNAT

This film was quite different from the other that I have watched for this class. Again, I had the agravating pleasure of not having subtitles available, so I had to rewind this movie quite a bit to catch everything. When will people just catch on?

This film is set after the Boer war in Africa, and three men are on trial for avenging their superior and also the disappearance of Germany missionary. Their defense is a small town lawyer with little to no experience. What follows is a great trial that has the verdict going back and forth the whole time, and you really enver know what is going to happen until the end.

This film, like both covers state, won Australian Academy Awards and an award at Cannes and even an Oscar nod. It lived up to the hype. It was quite raw and gave a great view of these men. The actors did an amazing job. The man who played Morant really made things come alive, and he was only out-done my their defense lawyer. For me, his character held the most chance for surprise. I was surprised to see that one of the soldiers was the same actor that was in Dead Heart as the english teacher. It makes sense that Australian native actors star in Australian films.

I really enjoyed this film. It was shot in a semi-flashback format, with the audience getting to see multiple viewpoints and events from the past. This film really captured the human spirit at war. This was a huge factor for the men, as it was being redefined what the rules of war were at the time. This was the most interesting part of the movie. We get to see the older men struggling to cope with the nature of the war they are in. It was great.

This is a military movie so if you are in to those, I would recommend this one. I thought it was pretty interesting because the court case revolved around the rules of Australian soldiers, which is something different than here, I believe. I will say that it doesn't end how I expected, but then again, unless a movie is based on a book, I like a little surprise at the end, unless it's for the worse. Fortunately in this case, it's for the better.

Lecture 4 was all about the coming of the English in Australia. We see that they came in two factions: Prisoners and 'Pilgrims'. The beginning part of the lecture talks about the myth history. This is where people like William McNeill and Austin Fife have, in plain terms, made up some history for the country, and both upheld these myths.

From here, we moved on to talk about the convicts. As I said, we catagorized most people as pilgrims or prisoners (this sounds like a great name for a rock song!). England had a crime problem and a new continent. Seems obvious that they should send their rif-raf overseas. You know the saying, "Out of sight, out of mind." They sent most of their convicts to Botany Bay, which is what the picture is of in this post. This policy worked. They used the prisoners to build colonies, but soon they realized that this was too far from 'Her Majesty', so they quiet shipping convicts there.

From here, we saw how these people continued their lives in their new world. I found it fascinating how Dr. Isern said people would commit petty crimes just to be able to get out of England and a have a chance at a better life. You come imagine the pub talk in Enland: "Where be old Tom?" "Stole a biscuit for a better life!"

We saw the slow transition from what was imprisonment to freedom and eventual normal day life. You can see how this could happen. England soon started to plain forget about the prisoners out there and from there, they started to gain freedom.

From here, we moved on to New Zealand. I just want to say that New Zealand seems like a much better place, on the whole, and everything we've learned leans towards this viewpoint. It seems so much different that they had a systematic and planned colonization. Immigrants with good character could buy land. This really sounds amazing. Also, the finding of gold in NZ didn't hinder things either.

This was another fun lecture. I didn't know the extent of the criminal shipping to Australia. I also enjoyed the culture-specific terms used. It's always funny to hear stuff like that. Great lecture!

The film UTU, by Geoff Murphy, takes place in New Zealand in the late 1860s, early 1870s. The story is of a Maori warrior (Te Wheke) who is a guide for a British regiment. While on patrol, Te Wheke finds that his family has been murdered and his village burned by the very (pale) hands he calls his friends. Te Wheke then dons the mask of the utu; a ritual scaring of the face for revenge . . . now let the carnage begin! At least that's what the cover would make you believe. Don't get me wrong, there are a few good parts (especially in the church), but I don,t want to give it away. I went into this film believing it to be very serious, and it is, but there are some parts that caught me off guard and made me laugh (specifically, Mr. Williamson and his shotgun!). This humor and British satire (how I saw it) seemed out of place for the topic. But what some of the humor revealed (oddly) was that everyone is affected by this fighting. It also had a "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" feel to it with the long pauses between some of the lines (face off).
The movie was filmed in New Zealand and this is one thing that makes the movie. It is beautiful! The counrty side reminded me of Ireland (very green and rocky). I believe it was filmed on the North Island. I am only guessing this because some of the natives that were used in the film were from a club out of Hawke,s Bay. I didn't expect it to be so foggy/cloudy and even a bit chilly (could see their breath). By the looks of it, the film was shot at higher altitudes (could explain the fog or just special effects).
We do get to see the Maori ritual dance in the film, in addition to tongue flicking! Te Wheke resembles Gene Simmons at times. UTU is a really good movie, but it may be an acquired taste; that is to say that you may have to watch it more than once. The acting could be better. Note the reaction of the church members (these are some of the locals)!

Settlements; Convicts and Pilgrims. This lecture concentrated on the arrival and settlement of europeans into and on native aborigine and maori lands in New Zealand and Australia. The introduction of slides showing what immigrants were faced with as the disembarked on to the new lands was a very vivid way of showing the nature of climate, soils, and topographies that the immigrants had to deal with. The importation of convicts to Australia, versus the so called planned settlements of New Zealand, due to their close proximities create quite contrasting views today of these countries. But due to the many complications that a large crowd of immigrants, used to different customs, convicts who may not have had any customs, and those natives who viewed the land as theirs, created quite the stir for developement and building of towns and social customs of the colonies own. Eventually the complications of the exportations from England to Australia of convicts became so chaotic in the new colonies that the Committe set up in England to study what this policy of convict transplantation had as an effect on the colonies diecided to stop all transportation of convicts. In effect this still defines Australia today to some extent as the place where convicts started a nation to a certain degree.

New Zealand was a different type of colony, middle to upper class englishmen were imported to the islands to help start a totally planned class type colony similar to better than that of the England class system. They wanted to make a more perfect class type colony or social life. The man Wakefield who headed this planned system had his plot if you want to call it that foiled by the advent of the gold rush, not a planned rush at all, but spurred on by the greed of men looking for easy money.
This to a certain extent still defines New Zealand today as the government should take care of the people and, if problems arise the government needs to look into the problem. Quite a contrast of view from the Aussies but one can see how these reflections stemms from their roots of settlement.

These contrast and comparisons of the two nations is quite interesting seeing as how they were settled at the same time periods by the same peoples nearly, and they ended up coming out so different in their own sort of idealsim. New Zealand is this emerald paridise which is very much government run, and Australia is this rough jagged land which seems to be reflected in the people as they even in recent years have had some sort of riot and made world news due to racial tensions. So does this mean the land can have an impact on how a nation is developed, (refering to Dr. Isern' reference to the land make the people or vise versa)?
Very interesting lecture.
Dan Hillukka

Lecture Four was titled Settlement: Convicts & Pilgrims and focused on the European settlement of Australia and New Zealand. Dr. Isern explained the history of settlement in Australia and New Zealand in the terms of Mythistory. Mythistory is used to describe the founding myths of both countries. For example, in Australia the colonies were originally made up of wealthy landowners and convicts for labor. This has evolved into a situation where today Australians take pride in being able to find a convict in their family tree. These early settlers were greeted by a harsh landscape where their struggle to create an agricultural society almost starved them all. This initial failure opened the doors to other economic opportunities such as ranching and the colonies eventually transitioned to wanting respectability instead of cheap labor and transportation was stopped, but these origins have not been forgotten by new generations. In New Zealand the myth of a planned settlement where wealthy landowners purchased land at a fair price was again overrun by the success of Ranching but Kiwi's still believe that their origins have created a nation where planned settlement created a civil and utopian society.

This lecture was interesting because it made me think about how much the origins of a country affect that country's history. In the United States our origins or religious freedoms and a country the rest of the world could look to as the perfect society has permeated our culture and to this very day we are convinced all other nations should be just like us. In Australia and New Zealand the origins of both nations have changed the way the people look at themselves and their countries. This dynamic made these two nations into what they are today and explains the inherent differences between them and the differences with other nations that were colonized by the British. I like to this of this as a good thing because otherwise every nation that was colonized by the British might be just like Canada.

During lecture four we discussed the settlement of Australia and New Zealand. We began by looking at some of Dr. Isern's pictures from sheep stations and mining scenes, giving us an idea of what these pilgrims and convicts saw when they arrived. We then talked about the transportation of convicts and how it affected Australia and New Zealand. During this time convict colonies were beinging development and so grew problems. The Irish republicans and many other groups did not get along leading to turmoil. Other economic opportunities began to uprise and so did the immigration rate. This lead to the new immigrants wanting respectability and that is hard to acheive in a land of convicts. So, in 1937, the Molesworth Committee agreed to stop the trasportation. New Zealand was settled very differently with the purpose of planned settlement. They disired the British quality of life, only better. Soon settlement sites began to develope and opportunities on the felden were recognized. Immigration to the country due to found gold, lead to the arrival of the "undesirables" to New Zealand.

Part of this lecture that I found interesting is even though these countries are close to each other, they still developed different strategies for settlement. In my mind planned settlement is much better than convict settlement. Leading me to think why they thought it would be a good idea. However, I have to remind myself that our founders were "traitors" and would have been in prison or dead if they didn't leave Britian. So good people exist every where. A question that I have is how many immigrants came to New Zealand? Since it was planned I assume that it was very organized but I would still like to know how many people came and in what time frame.

Lecture four was titled "Settlement: Convicts and Pilgrims". Dr. Isern first showed us some pictures of Sydney, sheep stations of the South Island, and mining scenes from Thomson Gorge. Sydney was where the convicts landed. After all the pictures we got into the mythistory in Australia and New Zealand. Austin Fife stated that historians are the ones who are the disciplinarians of myths.

We then talked about how the convict colony came about. Crime was out of control in England and overcrowding became an issue. The first fleet landed in Sydney and there was a negative reaction to the landof the new colony. Arthur Phillip was appointed the taskmaster governor. A lot of criminals were either petty criminals or habitual criminals.

The colonization of New Zealand was quite different from Australia. Edward Gibbon Wakefield promoted the ideal of a planned, systematic colonization of New Zealand. Wakefield wanted to somewhat replicate the British social order only without the frontier chaos. The planned colonization worked to begin with, but it didnt last. The gold rush overwhelmed the ideal and produced unplanned growth. There were five planned colonies in New Zealand from 1840 to 1850 that included; Port Nicholson, Nelson, Taranaki, Otago, and Canterbury.

What i really liked about this lecture is that the chapter in Clark's book about the convict colony sort of went along with what we were talking about in class. I feel that I have a pretty good grasp on the information about the convict colony. I also like learning about the differences of how Australia and New Zealand were colonized. It was interesting to see how two places that are so close to each other can be colonized so differently. My only question is, what would be different if the Australian colonization had been planned out and New Zealand had been the one with the convict colony?

The Tracker is a film based in 1922 Australia. It features a group of white men searching for a Aborigine who is accused of killing a white woman. The group is led by a very experienced Aborigine man who at times seems to simply be following his nose in his pursuit of the accused man. The leader of the group, a fanatical white man, is deeply racist and has no sympathy for the aborigines. At one point early in the film he kills an entire tribe of Aborigines simply because he wants to send a message to them that crimes by tribesman will not be tolerated. His extreme hatred of "blacks" causes his followers to begin to doubt his sanity and question his leadership. After angering the tribe they are pursued by unseen aborigines who first kill their pack horse then wounds the older man. Thinking his compatriots wounds are slowing them down the leader again resorts to murder to achieve his goal when he puts the older man out of his misery. All this is noted by the Tracker who takes revenge into his own hands by turning the tides on the leader and hanging him for the murder or innocent people. The remaining white man, a young soldier and the tracker manage to find the accused aborigine amongst another tribe who captures and punishes him for raping one of their own. Satisfied by this the Tracker and the young soldier part ways.

This film offered great insight into the racist beliefs held by whites in the early 20th century. The leader of the group treats the aborigines he comes across and almost subhumans who need to be protected from themselves and arent worth the trouble they can cause. The Tracker, for his part, seems to take this hatred in stride until he finally takes his revenge. Throughout the film he seems to admit his peoples short comings but takes pride at the end of the film with how his people handle the wanted man. Australia's role in this film is played out across the outback, where the harsh desert landscape and lack of food and water makes the trek after the man deadly if not for the help of their native guide. I enjoyed this film and thought it was a great resource for anyone who wants to gain understanding for the racism that was rapant in 1920's Australia, as well as before and after that decade.

Heavenly Creatures is a strange film directed by Peter Jackson. It is set in 1950's Christchurch, New Zealand with two girls, Pauline and Juliet, who develop what their parents consider an "unhealthy" friendship. The girls friendship is based around a fantasy world where the girls are the stars. The girls become so engrossed in their fantasy lives that they become increasingly estranged from their families, other children, and their teachers. This separation from the real world worries both girls families who believe their friendship is based on sexual feelings between the girls and the families decide to attempt to separate the girls from eachother with the hopes the girls would grow out of their fantasies. After learning of their parents plot to separate them the girls plot to flee to America and begin trying to raise the money to get there, but when they realize they will not be able to run away they plot to murder Pauline's mother Honora, whom they feel is their main obstacle. The girls commit the vicious murder with a brick inside a sock and manage to get away with it. They are, however, still forced to separate when Juliet's father forces her to move away.

This movie was, at best, disturbing. The fantasy world the girls create was so elaborate with the characters being made out of clay and their lineages traced back for centuries that I found it hard to believe a 15 and 16 year old girl would be able to stay interested in anything for such a long period of time. Besides the plot though this film gives a very good view into the school New Zealand girls would have been exposed to, and the landscapes for most of their romps through the woods seems almost like a forest of the American Northeast. New Zealand is often depicted as being a beautiful place but one that trapped the girls nontheless and the monotony of the entirely green landscape becomes apparent at times. I had a hard time enjoying this film but did learn quite abit about Christchurch and the landscape around it.

Lecture 4, entitled "Settlement: Convicts & Pilgrims", discussed the origins of settlement in colonial Australia and New Zealand. One of Australia's notorieties is that it was founded by convicts. Even though it wasn't completely founded by convicts, the transportation of convicts out of Britain to Australia helped shape the foundations of the current society. Around 1840's transportation was halted due to the fact that Australia began to lose its view as a criminal wasteland and began to be seen for its potential as a money making jackpot.

Colonization in New Zealand began with a little more order than in Australia. Land was bought or negotiated for from the Maori to start civilization. Then a man by the name of Wakefield came up with a scheme to start an ideal settlement in New Zealand. The scheme was basically a planned class system that recruited good, well-behaved families from Britain to come over to New Zealand and own land. This scheme didn't work that great because new lands such as the Americas offered better opportunities for landowners, however the concept of this perfect society may have carried onward to present times in creating the view that many New Zealanders have of being an ideal country. Eventually pastoralists offered the most lucrative business, and Wakefield's scheme met its demise.

I was really interested in the discussion of how the Aussies and New Zealanders view their origins. Dr. Isern discussed how many Australians are actually very proud to have convict blood in their ancestry, whereas New Zealanders would be much more proud to have come from a religious pilgrim. The Australian viewpoint didn't surprise me since Aussies and Kiwis are generally thrill seeking badasses, but I was a little surprised that New Zealanders don't follow suit in embracing their criminal origins.

"The introduction of a few rabbits could do little harm and might provide a touch of home, in addition to a spot of hunting." Thomas Austin (10). This mentality helped introduce the worst vertebrate pest in Australian history. Here I will briefly discuss the significance of the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) on the environment in Australia.
The first European rabbits landed in Australia with the First Fleet in 1788 (2,3). Over the years there were a number of other introductions of rabbits to the land. It is believed that most current rabbits descend from 13 (3) or 24 rabbits released by Thomas Austin of the Victorian Acclimatization Society in 1859 near Greelog (4, 7). At the time, people didn't really think about exotic species as a problem. Unfortunately the European rabbits got a foot hold in the environment and subsequently turned into an invasive species that dominates the land (6).
Rabbits are very hardy creatures and "breed like rabbits!" Many species can start to breed around 3 months of age and can produce dozens of kits each year. In Australia they flourished because of a lack of natural predators and other checks that usually keep rabbit populations manageable. This was a major factor in the rabbits as becoming invasive species (6).
Most rabbits live in community burrows or warrens that disrupt native vegetation and support weedy or undesirable plants. Rabbits live a semi-fossorial life style and dig up the soil in order to construct the warrens. This leads to high clay percentage or soil and increased pH levels on the mounds versus untouched land. These factors help increase erodibiltiy of the soil resulting in a loss of nutrients and poorer quality of the soil. The lower quality soils are mainly characterized by exotic plants whereas the untouched areas are dominated by native species (1).
The European rabbits have been blamed for having direct and indirect impacts on a number of native birds and mammals. The wombat population has declined likely due to food competition with rabbits. The wombats have to change their grazing habits. The adults can cope, but their young don't cope as well to the change. The bilby has been pushed into a few isolated areas. It only takes the rabbits around 10 years after colonizing an area to push out the bilbys (9). The Gould's petrels that nests on Cabbage Tree Island, NSW, populations dwindled because of rabbits reducing cover vegetation, exposing nesting sites, and exposing the bird-lime tree that traps birds (5).
The rabbits were not the only species brought over from Europe. Predators of the rabbits were also brought over such as the European red fox in 1868 (4, 9). Unfortunately the native species were naïve and foxes found them tasty and easy to catch. The population of red foxes was not only supported by the rabbits but the new prey as well. This has had detrimental effects to the populations of many native species.
It is estimated that the rabbits cause over $600 million (Australian) dollars of damage to agriculture every year and can impact the economy. That amount doesn't include the effects to native species, landscape, or future problems (4). The over browsing of vegetation and composition changes of the soil and flora has negatively affected pastoral productivity especially in arid and semi-arid areas (2). They have been declared pests by the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act of 1976 in Western Australia (7, 8). The cattle and sheep markets are a major part of the Australian economy. The cost of loss in production in the wool industry alone is over $115 million annually (9). It takes only 10-16 rabbits to eat what one sheep can consume (4). In some cases the rabbits will graze vegetation to the roots destroying the plant. The sheep and cattle normally won’t eat the roots (9).
By the late nineteenth century, people recognized the rabbits were becoming a problem. One of the first efforts to stop the rabbits was a rabbit proof fence that was completed in 1907 and spans 2,023 miles (10). The fence is by no means fool-proof, but it has some other positive effects. It is a firebreak and also keeps other unwanted animals away from farmers' lands. Without the fence, the monetary damage to crops and pastures would be a whole lot worse.
Australians have tried many different ways to exterminate or control the European rabbit population. Biocontrol agents such as myxomatosis in the 1950s, European rabbit flea, and rabbit calicivirus (RCD, RHD, or RHDV) have been employed with some success but the rabbits are still around (3, 5, 7). A few other ways of controlling include a viral-vectored immunocontraception (VVIC), bait with a brodifacoum anticoagulant, traps, poisons (pindone, 1080), and by destroying warrens (5, 1, 2).
I think it's safe to say that Thomas Austin and the Victorian Acclimatization Society had no idea of what the future impacts on the environment would be after releasing the rabbits in Australia. One would hope that we all could learn from past mistakes, but for some reason that doesn't always happen. Releasing a non-native or exotic species (even biocontrol agents) to an environment for any reason should be taken with great consideration and not hastily. One of the viruses might have worked and wiped out the entire population of rabbits if there had been a perfectly executed plan. Another example of poor judgment was the introduction of cane toads (Bufo marinus) to eat bugs destroying the sugarcane crop. The life habits (especially the excessive breeding of the toads) of the toad and beetles could have been studied more extensively and they would have found if they were incompatible before it was too late. Now areas are overrun with toads.
Exotic species can be defined as "species that occur outside their natural ranges because of human activity (6)." These species are not just a problem in Australia, but all over the world. As long as humans keep colonizing areas, we're going to intentionally or unintentionally bring new species with us. The best we can do is to try and learn from our mistakes and try to minimize negative impacts to the environment. At least Australians found a market for rabbit fur and canned rabbit meat. Unfortunately the market isn't worth hundreds of millions of dollars to offset the damage done by the European rabbits.



1. Eldridge, D.J., Myers, C.A., 2001. The impact of warrens of the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus L.) on soil and ecological processes in a semi-arid Australian woodland. Journal of Arid Environment 47, 325-337.

2. Eldridge, D.J., Simpsom, R. 2002. Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus L.) impacts on vegetation and soils, and implications for management of wooded rangelands. Basic and Applied Ecology 3, 19-29.

3. Hayes, R. A., Richardson, B.J., 2001. Biological control of the rabbit in Australia: lessons not learned? TRENDS in Microbiology 9, 459-460.

4. Hinds, L.A., Cooke, B.D., Robinson, T.J., Williams, C.K. Paper prepared for Prime Minister’s Science and Engineering Council, Sept. 1996. Rabbits – prospects for long term control: mortality and fertility control.

5. Priddel, D., Carlile, N., Wheeler, R. 2000. Eradication of European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) from Cabbage Tree Island, NSW, Australia, to protect the breeding habitat of Gould’s petrel (Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera). Biological Conservation 94, 115-125.

6. Primack, R.B. A Primer of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc.; Publishers Sunderland, Massachusetts, 2004.


7. Department of Agriculture. Staff of the Vertebrate Pest Research Section. 2003. Farmnote: European rabbit. www.agric.wa.goc.au accessed 1/30/08

8. Department of Agriculture. Lowe, T. and Twigg, L. 2007. Rabbit control in urban and semi-urban areas. www.agric.wa.goc.au 1/30/08

9. Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. 1997. Environmental damage by wild rabbits: eating the heart out of the country. www.csiro.au/communication/rabbits/qa2.htm accessed 2/2/08

10. Agriculture Protection Board. 2001. The State Barrier Fence of Western Australia Centenary 1901-2001 http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/content/pw/vp/barrier_intro_history.pdf accessed 2/20/08

Lecture 4 was titled Settlement: Convicts and Pilgrims. Mythistory was introduced, which incorporates old myths that have been turned into history, and also historians who are also the myth-makers.
Transportation was a big topic in this lecture, coming to and from Australia/New Zealand. Transportation to America was actually suspended for some time. Convicts were being brought to Australia by the shiploads and many people were very disgruntled about this. When they say convicts we would normally think of people charged with murder, arson, high end theft; but the convicts being brought to Australia were political dissidents (Irish republicans, Luddites, Canadian Revolutionaries), petty criminals, and basically people that just didn't go along with what the British wanted. The three convict colonies that were established were New South Wales in 1788, Van Dieman's Land in 1812, and Western Australia in 1829.
Colonization then started in New Zealand and Australia. Edward Gibbon Wakefield played a big role in the systematic colonization of N.Z. Planned colonization would allow for only small parcels of land for settlers with land being sold at a sufficient price. The land sales would then go to fund more immigrants of good character. Gold was then discovered and the rushes to Otago and westland produced an unplanned growth.
I really found the section about the convicts very interesting. I think I remember either hearing in lecture or reading this in Clark, that the convicts were able to become successful themselves. My question would be how was this possible? If someone was brought to an island as a convict for work wouldn't they be somewhat monitored?

Convicts and Pilgrims was a great lecture on the settlement o f New Zealand and Australia. Starting with Australia we discussed how the high crime rates in Georgia England had caused a crowding of hulks that were sent to America. As a result convict colonies were created in New South Wales, Van Die man’s land and eventually Western Australia. Convicts ranged anywhere from political dissidents to habitual criminals. Many convicts on the first fleet to New South Wales suffered starvation due to dry land that was not easily cultivated. By 1868 all transportation of convicts to Australia was stopped.

New Zealand was settled in a very different way than Australia. New Zealand actually had planned colonization meaning they got to pick and choose who would be sent there to develop it. It was planned and thought of as a reproduction of English life only better. With the discovery of gold in Otago and the Westland of New Zealand, unplanned growth began to occur. Australians, Americans and Chinese began to enter New Zealand all in search for gold. As put in lecture this was an arrival of undesirables which would only mess up the planned colony.

My interest in this lecture was the topic of mythistory. Not knowing anything about New Zealand or Australia when coming to this class, hearing some of this was a bit shocking. If I hadn’t heard it from this class I would have thought it an untruth. Even knowing that these things happened, it’s hard to believe that it was thought safe to send convicts to an island and trust them to develop it. The planned colony of New Zealand is a little more believable and sounds much safer. We of the present have to make the decision of what to believe actually happened by way of journals and such. Any historian could make what was once a true story into untruth by revising it incorrectly so that those who read it may misunderstand.

Lecture four was titled "Settlement: Convicts and Pilgrims". We first talked about the mythistory that is in New Zealand and Australia. There were two main people involved with this concept, William McNeil and Austin Fife. Mythistory is where historians made up some information regarding the history of the two countries. The next thing that we talked about was the convicts. Some of the most popular convicts set away from England to Australia were political convicts and petty criminals were involved as well. When they got to the area, there were three colonies that were set up in Australia for them: New South Wales in 1788, Van Diemen's Land in 1812 and Western Australia in 1829. Over time, each settlement stopped receiving convicts, and the transportation was over by 1868. Next, we talked about the colonization of New Zealand. There were five planned colonies that were established by 1850. Gold was found in New Zealand, and that created even more of a rush for people to settle in the country, which greatly increased population.
I thought that this lecture was very interesting, especially since I did not know a lot about where the criminals went when the arrived in Australia. I also liked how we talked about the vocabulary that the convicts would use. I did not think that they would have different terms, but I was proved wrong. The settlement of both countries is different and that is interesting since they are so close together. I wonder what the countries would be like if they were settled differently, example, Australia not receiving the convicts and how that would have affected England.

Lecture four was about how Australia and New Zealand came to be settled. Dr. Isern strated out with some of the photos that he has taken in his travels to these distant lands over the years. I always enjoy those photos because it gives a better view of the countries rather than something that is just in a textbook. Another concept that Dr. Isern covered was that of mythistory. Here he talked about William McNeill and his ideas of historians as myth-makers. Australia first started to be settled by England because the English prisons were overflowing so they thought what better way to get them out of their hair than to send them halfway around the world. It actually worked for quite a while too. They originally set up settlements in three places: New South Wales, Van Diemens Land, and Western Australia. New Zealand was planned colonization from the get go. They set up land for people and allowed them to travel down and become a colony. They referred to it as reproduction of english life, only better. It seems almost like the New Zealanders were kind of high on themselves by calling themselves better than England. I found this lecture interesting because it makes Australia look worse than New Zealand because they started off as a convict colony while NZ was a planned colonization. If I recall correctly too, the Australians tried to downplay their convicts a little bit by saying that the things they did to get shipped down there weren't actually that bad. Eventually they actually stopped sending convicts down south because it was starting to look bad. I also enjoyed the song that professor Isern sang to us about the colonists being sent down to Botany Bay. I can't help but wonder what Australia would have been like had they not stopped shipping criminals down there.