Australian History in 7 Questions

John Hirst

• Publisher: Black Inc.
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781863956703
• eBook ISBN: 9781922231703
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Australian & Oceanian History
• Index: History

If there are genuine questions about Australian history, there is something to puzzle over. The history ceases to be predictable—and dull. From the author of The Shortest History of Europe, acclaimed historian John Hirst, comes this fresh and stimulating approach to understanding Australia's past and present. Hirst asks and answers questions that get to the heart of Australia's history:

• Why did Aborigines not become farmers?
• How did a penal colony change peacefully to a democracy?
• Why was Australia so prosperous so early?
• Why did the Australian colonies federate?
• What effect did convict origins have on national character?
• Why was the postwar migration programme a success?
• Why is Australia not a republic?

Engaging and enjoyable, and written for the novice and the expert alike, Australian History in 7 Questions explains how we became the nation we are today.'If you don't always agree with the answers, you will certainly acquire a renewed interest in the questions. This, surely, is the highest hope of good history.' —Saturday Paper 'An excellent tool for provoking debate' —Age 'An intriguing approach' —West Weekend Magazine 'With trademark clarity and insight, Hirst manages to touch every cornerstone of Australia's past … every Australian should read this book.' — Monthly 'Thought provoking' —Daily Telegraph 'Instructively provocative' —Burnie Advocate ' Australian History in 7 Questions is a lively and exciting book, showing the skills of a professional historian and social commentator … Anyone would benefit from reading this erudite short book.' —Australian Journal of Politics and History John Hirst was a member of the History Department at La Trobe University from 1968 to 2007. He has written many books on Australian history, including Convict Society and Its Enemies, The Strange Birth of Colonial Democracy, The Sentimental Nation, Sense and Nonsense in Australian History and The Shortest History of Europe.

QUESTION 1

WHY DID ABORIGINES NOT BECOME FARMERS?

In the beginning all humankind were hunter-gatherers. About 10,000 BC agriculture was developed independently in a handful of places around the globe. It then spread widely; it came close to Australia, but in Aboriginal times was not established here. The Aborigines remained hunter-gatherers.

The highlands of New Guinea were one of the places where agriculture was developed, but it did not spread far, not even to the whole of the island. China was another place of agricultural invention, and from there it spread south to the Philippines and then west to Indonesia and eastward into the Pacific. So Timor, New Guinea, the Solomons, Vanuatu and Fiji had fields and gardens and settled village life. Australians now call this part of the globe an ‘arc of instability’. In prehistoric times these were places of settled life, while the Australian Aborigines remained wanderers.

Gardens came very close to Australia; they were cultivated on islands in the Torres Strait, between Australia and New Guinea. The people here were Melanesian, like the other gardeners in this region, though most spoke an Australian Aboriginal language. As this suggests, the Aborigines of Cape York had close relations with the gardeners of the Torres Strait – so close that the fuzzier hair of the Melanesians is found quite a way down Cape York.

The Cape York Aborigines traded and fought with the Torres Strait Islanders. The islanders took heads from the Aborigines they had killed to trade for outrigger canoes from New Guinea. The Aborigines, in turn, traded with the islanders to obtain canoes so they had more sophisticated craft than the bark canoes that were used in other parts of Australia. The Aborigines followed some of the rituals of the islanders: they used drums in their ceremonies and placed the corpses of the dead on platforms. The islanders learnt of the throwing stick, or woomera, from the Aborigines.

In all this exchange the Aborigines learnt about gardens and garden crops, but they did not become gardeners. Sometimes it is said that Australia’s soil and climate and its plants were not suitable for agriculture, but this argument won’t work for Cape York. The soil and climate were the same as on the islands. The women on Cape York dug up the same yams that were planted in gardens in Torres Strait. Coconut trees grow wild in Cape York but were not planted as they were on the islands.

From around 1700 AD the Aborigines in Arnhem Land and the Kimberleys were exposed to rice, one of the standard agricultural crops, first developed in China. The Macassans from the island of Sulawesi in Indonesia sailed each year to the Australian coast to collect trepang, or sea cucumber, which they sold for use in China—as a food and as an aphrodisiac. They brought rice to live on during their stay in Australia and to supply to the Aborigines, with whom they wanted to remain on good terms while they camped on their territory. The Aborigines liked rice, and the Aboriginal men who went back to Sulawesi with the Macassans for the off-season saw rice being grown, but the Aborigines did not move to cultivate their own rice. It could be done. The Chinese grew rice in the Northern Territory in European times.

The Europeans who came to Australia had an easy answer for the failure of the Aborigines to develop farming: they were a backward people. In their understanding, the progress of humankind could be marked by the movement from hunter-gathering to herding, then to agriculture, to trading and finally to manufacturing. As racial ideas firmed up during the nineteenth century, Aborigines became still more inferior in European eyes. Instead of being a backward people who might yet improve, they were branded a congenitally inferior race that was incapable of advancing. We have ditched the notion of racial differences, but we might still be tempted to think of Aborigines as backward, since the civilisation we inhabit is a result of the development of agriculture and all that it made possible. Over the last fifty or so years, anthropologists and archaeologists have been accumulating the evidence to drive that idea out of our heads.

You think the Aborigines were backward? Watch them trapping ducks on the Murray River. They stretch a long net across the river, just above the water. They disturb a group of ducks grazing on the river a little distance away. The ducks fly along the river towards the net. Should they start flying too high, one of the hunters throws a bark disc over them and gives a shrill whistle like a hawk. The ducks dip down—and fly into the net. The explorer Thomas Mitchell examined one of these nets and declared that the fibre and weaving were as good as any made in Britain.

You think of Aborigines as incapable of development? At about the same time that agriculture was spreading through South-east Asia (4500 to 3500 years ago), the Aborigines began using resources in a more intense way—which provided for a greater population, the same result which agriculture brought. Archaeologists map this change by the greater number of campsites they uncover from this period, the signs of more people using them, the appearance of new foods in the diet and new technology like fishhooks made from shell, the exploitation of offshore islands for the first time, and, most surprising of all, the appearance in a few places of houses and a more settled life. The most substantial settlement was at Lake Condah, in western Victoria, where the Aborigines built stone houses beside the network of waterways they had constructed to store and trap eels.

If agriculture is the test of development, something like agriculture was practised by the Aborigines in the interior of the continent. They could colonise this harsh country because they learnt to harvest the native grass, nardoo. The grass was cut and stacked in stooks to dry. Thomas Mitchell said the scene looked like a hayfield in England. The nardoo seeds were knocked out of the stalks, the chaff was blown away, and the seeds were ground into flour with a rock on a grinding stone. The flour was then baked into cakes in the ashes of the fire. In their last days on Coopers Creek, the explorers Burke and Wills ground nardoo seeds into flour, in an effort to keep themselves alive, something they had learnt from the Aborigines.

The archaeologist Rhys Jones did most to jog our thinking about how Aborigines got their living when he coined the term ‘firestick farming’. Aborigines regularly set fire to the country, which kept it open and brought on fresh grass that attracted kangaroos and other animals. The British regularly were amazed to find much of the country so open, a scattering of trees with no underbrush, and looking like an English gentleman’s park, which was a very contrived landscape. It was the Aborigines who had contrived to make Australia like this, and hence ready to be used by the British for their sheep and cattle.

Burning the land is not, of course, close and careful cultivation, but the historian Bill Gammage in a major recent book, The Biggest Estate on Earth, argues that Aborigines did not simply set the country alight, they also micromanaged fire to make a patchwork of different environments suitable for the animals and plants they wanted to exploit. His argument has been contested, and it overlooks the carelessness of Aborigines with fire. They never put out a campfire, and if they wanted to freshen up a firestick they would put it in dry grass, get the flame they wanted on the firestick, and leave the grass burning.

Gammage has also argued that the Aboriginal treatment of plants should be called farming. Those wide swathes of native grasses must have been weeded. Yam grounds were preserved, and the top part of the yam replanted so that it would grow again. But the Aborigines never domesticated a plant by careful breeding and re-sowing, which is part of what is meant by agriculture.

For all that Gammage wants to insist that Aborigines were engaged in farming, he does make this important concession: ‘People farmed in 1788 (and before) but were not farmers.’ Being a farmer is to follow a settled life, and Aborigines wanted to be on the move, connecting with all parts of their land, which had sacred significance to them. It was their failure to settle anywhere permanently which convinced the British that Aborigines were at the lowest level of human development. When Captain Cook anchored in Botany Bay in 1770 he saw only rude bark shelters and a wandering people who did not cultivate the soil. Had he seen stone houses like those at Lake Condah, the British government would not have been so confident that they did not have to buy land for their convict settlement from the Aborigines or make a treaty with them. They had made treaties with the American Indians and would make a treaty with the Maori of New Zealand. When West Africa was being considered for the convict settlement, the planning included the purchase of land from the natives.

In 1992 the Australian High Court, in the Mabo case, overturned 200 years of legal history and declared that native title did exist in Australia. Where the land had been sold or leased, native title had been extinguished, but elsewhere, if the Aborigines could show an ongoing traditional attachment to their land, they held native title over it. The case which led to this ruling did not concern Aborigines on the mainland; Eddie Mabo and his fellow plaintiffs held gardening land on Murray Island, in the Torres Strait, which was a late addition to Australia.

The British government claimed the islands in the Torres Strait in 1879. They became part of Queensland, and in 1901, with federation, part of Australia. The British government was concerned with security and lawlessness in the strait; it had no...

Table of contents

• FRONT COVER
• ALSO BY JOHN HIRST
• AUSTRALIAN HISTORY IN SEVEN QUESTIONS
• COPYRIGHT
• CONTENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• QUESTION 1: WHY DID ABORIGINES NOT BECOME FARMERS?
• QUESTION 2: HOW DID A PENAL COLONY CHANGE PEACEFULLY TO A DEMOCRACY?
• QUESTION 3: WHY WAS AUSTRALIA SO PROSPEROUS SO EARLY?
• QUESTION 4: WHY DID THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES FEDERATE?
• QUESTION 5: WHAT EFFECT DID CONVICT ORIGINS HAVE ON NATIONAL CHARACTER?
• QUESTION 6: WHY WAS THE POSTWAR MIGRATION PROGRAMME A SUCCESS?
• QUESTION 7: WHY IS AUSTRALIA NOT A REPUBLIC?
• NOTES
• INDEX