Links to Book Reviews I have written

At this post I will be linking to book reviews I have written for the Review in Australian Studies .

http://search.arrow.edu.au/main/results?c_creator0=Paul+Burns&c_creator1=Paul+Burns&inst=Reviews+in+Australian+Studies&sort=primary_title&start=10

Enjoy.
PB.

Dogs, Cats, Cattle, Pigs, Horses, Goats, Chooks and a Monkey - and Sheep - Tales of the First Fleet. I

The English think when Australians talk about chooks we mean a cooked chicken.

( If you don't believe me, see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/20/australia-authors-territorial-copyright )

Not so. So far as European Australians are concerned, since 1788, chooks have always been with us. Along with dogs, cats, horses, goats, sheep and pigs. I'm going to keep you in suspense about the monkey.
It was not unusual for British men-of-war to carry a fair quantity of poultry, pigs, goats and cattle for fresh food, though some captains would not allow pigs because they thought them too dirty. Others permitted the pigs so long as they were washed daily. One captain had them running amok about the deck. [N. A. M. Rodger, The Command of the Ocean, A Naval History of Great Britain, 1649-1815,London, 2004]

Commodore Arthur Phillip, the newly appointed Governor of the convict colony of New South Wales, in his Instructions, was told that on his way to the new gaol he was to 'take on board any number of black cattle, sheep, goats, or hogs which you can procure, and the ships of the convoy can contain in order to propagate the breed of these animals ...' [Historical Records of New South Wales, I,2, Mona Vale, 1978, p.86.] This he did, at Cape Town, during his stay there in October/November 1787. To be precise, he bought six cows, two bulls, one of them a calf, one stallion, three or four mares. each with a young colt, somewhere between thirty to forty-four fat-tailed sheep, four to one hundred and twenty goats, twenty-eight hogs (who would eventually take over the Sydney streets for a time) and a large flock of poultry. The figures for some of the stock are imprecise because different numbers are recorded in the various First Fleet Journals. All up they cost him over 2000 pounds of the Government's money.

There were 247 marines embarked on the First Fleet. [Mollie Gillen, The Founders of Australia. A Biographical Dictionary of the First Fleet, Sydney, 1989, p.445.] Their officers, too, bought livestock, for they had dreams of establishing farms in their new country, and perhaps visions of becoming landed gentry. All refrained from slaughtering their animals for shipboard use, enduring a diet 'wholly of salt provisions' [John Hunter, An Historical Journal .. ' p.21.] for the last leg of the journey, rather than be landless and without stock. Judge Advocate Collins, for example, had 'three sheep, a goat, two pigs, ... eight fowls, two turkeys, two ducks' and 'two geese.' [David Collins, An Account of the English Colony ... I, n.44, p532.] Captain James Campbell, friend and confidant of the Lieutenant Governor, Major Ross, and a company commander, had a cow. [Arthur Bowes Smyth, Journal, p.55.]

The bulls and cows were embarked on the Sirius. These were 'black cattle, large, very strong, and remarkable for the great spaces between their horns'. [Collins, op.cit., p. lxxxiv.] Many of them were Phillip's private stock. [William Bradley, A Voyage to New South Wales, p.44.] They took up so much room that each of the main gun decks had to be stowed in the hold so 'Stalls, etc.,' could 'be built fore and aft the Deck, just leaving room to work the Cables.' [ibid., p.42.] The master's mate, Daniel Southwell, grumbled the ship had become 'a livery stable' 'where the people are much crowded, for the cattle are to occupy a deck which ... was theirs'. [Daniel Southwell in HRNSW, Volume 2, pp.675-676.] The horses went aboard the Lady Penrhyn, the rest of the government stock distributed to three other vessels.

Before leaving Portsmouth Phillip had ordered all dogs 'belonging to the men and officers to be put ashore.' The order was ignored. The Englishmen would not part with their dogs. They even bought new ones at the ports-of-call on the way to New South Wales. The younger brother of the Judge-Advocate, David Collins, Second Lieutenant William Collins's bitch, Flirt, had pups on the voyage. [John Currey, David Collins, A Colonial Life,Carlton South, 2000, p.39.] Apart from Flirt, there were at least Phillip's own thirty to forty dogs, two of which were greyhounds, and the Lady Penrhyn's carpenter's dog, Jockey, 'a great favourite of all the Ship's Co.' [Bowes Smyth, op. cit., p.142.]

The chaplain, Richard Johnson, had with him two small kittens, 'a little present' for him and his wife, Mary, which delighted them both and provided them with much amusement on the long voyage out. Once in New South Wales he set his cats free to kill the native wildlife, sending one to Norfolk Island because it dug up his garden, and letting the other loose in Sydney Cove. Both cats were most effective in their slaughter. [Richard Johnson, Some Letters ...Pt.1, pp. 13, 25.]

The First Fleeters brought rabbits (though these were not to become a pest for another sixty to seventy years after sheep had destroyed the native grasses and the pastoralists had decimated native predators like the dingo, native cats, crows, eagles and hawks leaving a niche for the rabbit population to expand exponentially. With the rabbit, the colonists had brought a little bit of England with them.

Finally, from Africa, there was that monkey. Named Pug, he was the only monkey on the First Fleet (at least one other came later) and lived till 1804, 'Devoid of talent ..../Uncensored to0 ....' [Michael Connor (ed.) Pig Bites Baby!, Stories from Australia's First Newspaper. Volume 1, 1803-1810, Pott's Point, 2004, pp.34, 36.] Apparently he occupied a high post (presumably chained) in a colonist's yard for many years, and was not the epitome of public decency.

The monkey might have fared well on the First Fleet voyage to New South Wales, but the Government stock did not. Six horses, two of them colts, four cows, one calf. three goats, some sheep, hogs and poultry were all that was left alive. In the rough passage from Capetown at least two cows, one bull and two calves had died, along with 117 goats. The losses among the sheep, hogs and poultry were not recorded. [The figures come from various First Fleet Journals.] Those marine officers, though, made sure they looked after their own interests - their stock was 'tolerably well preserved.' [Philip Gidley King, Journal, p.37.]

[The above is an extract from a microhistory of the First Fleet's first week at Botany Bay, on which I am presently working.]

Living with Cancer

Over the past couple of days on Larvatus Prodeo in the Lazy Sunday thread there has been an ongoing discussion by some people living with cancer or living with relatives and friends who have cancer.
I have mestazised prostate cancer myself. (No sympathy please. So far I'm coping and am in remission.)
Though I'm aware I might risk having this thread overwhelmed, I'm setting it up as a place where, if they want to, if they have cancer, or are living with friends and/or relatives with cancer, people will always have a place to talk. Apart, probably, from a few initial comments, I won't say much. This thread is a place where other people can talk if they want. Not for me to hold forth.
So, if you need it, it's here. Always unmoderated, and always here. (Though I would ask people not to make any defamatory comments.)

Update:The link to Anna Donald's blog can be found here:
http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/category/from-the-other-side/

On Politeness, Sensibility and Men of Feeling

Last week Australian viewers were subjected to an extraordinary ill-mannered display by John Eliot, former President of the Liberal Party, on ABC1's celebrity panel show, Q&A. This made me reflect upon the history of politeness, sensiblility and the like.

I will deal first with the idea of politeness. Politeness originally was a mid-eighteenth century reaction against the stiff formality of social manners that was the norm before about 1750. It presupposed 'a relaxed and genuine sociability' which ideally led to a new kind of social refinement.It presupposed one was living in a civil society (i.e. not rude or vulgar) where people treated each other with mutual respect. [Helen Berry. 'Polite Consumption: Shopping in Eighteenth Century England, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th. Series, XII, 2002, p. 393.]

This idea of polite behaviour, though it originated in the propertied classes, was of particular advantage to the middle-class professions, notably lawyers, physicians and the clergy. Lawyers and physicians particularly used politeness to make themselves amenable to likely employers, while the clergy saw it as a way of gaining polish through their contact with social superiors;(though Mr. Collins in Pride and Prejudice may not be a very good example) shop-keepers saw it as beneficial to their trade; though none of these bourgeoisie were seen to have the required breeding used by people of rank to consort with each other. [Paul Langford. 'The Uses of Eighteenth Century Politeness', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th. Series, XII,2002, p.318.] Nor could the use of politeness conceal the social and economic equalities that were the basis of eighteenth century society. [Berry, ibid., p.393.]

Despite this, politeness was a means of 'levelling up' for the middling sort (to use the correct eighteenth century term.) It produced a kind of 'self-conscious egalitarianism', most noticeable in the ubiquitous blue or black coat, hair without wig or powder, and the toleration of men wearing boots indoors. By behaving with attention and civility to inferiors (remember, its the eighteenth century we're talking about here), the address of men and women of humbler station as Mr. or Mrs., the dropping of titles of rank in everyday discourse, and the disappearance of swords as part of an everyday garb. They, instead, were replaced by canes and umbrellas. Specific street manners, such as men walking on the street side of the pavement when accompanied by a woman (so they could get splashed by the mud or choked by the dust from passing carriages) became the norm. [Langford, op.cit., pp. 316-317.) And polite conversation became the mark of a gentleman.

The new codes of politeness had advantages for women as well as men. They were no longer required to be silent in conversation, if only because women's conversation was seen as an adjunct of male refinement. Women could challenge in court the male practice of confining wives to the home. This now was seen as cruelty, because politeness demanded sociability within the home, in the guise of hospitality, as well as outside it. If they were victims of marital violence, the covering up of cuts and bruises while in public sent a strong social signal that attracted attention to their suffering, that was remembered by witnesses. [Elizabeth Foyster, 'Creating a Veil of Silence: Politeness and Marital Violence in the English Household', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th Series, XII,2000, p.403; pp.407-408.]

As a response to politeness, the culture of sensibility was developed. [Foyster, ibid.,] This was perceived as a new kind of refinement, the expression of heightened and intense feeling. [ John Brewer, The Pleasures of the Imagination, English Culture in the Eighteenth Century, Chicago, 1997, pp.113-114.) (Perhaps this was what John Eliot was experiencing last week on Q&A). Australians are fortunate to have the example of such a man in their early colonial history, the First Fleet Journal writer, Second Lieutenant Ralph Clark. Clark was on the Friendship in the First Fleet, and is best known, perhaps world famous, for describing the First Fleet convict women as 'damned whores'. While this certainly demonstrated, among other things, that he was a Man of Feeling, there are better examples in his Journal. He was, for example, frequently moved to tears while contemplating the miniature of his young wife, Alicia, so much so that one might describe him as lachrymose. Being a Man of Feeling, however was not always a positive experience. In one of the darker passages of his Journal, hours after being shipwrecked on Norfolk Island on the Sirius on the 19 March 1790 Clark assisting people ashore on a raft was almost drowned. In his own words (I have modernised the spelling, despite its charm for purists like myself):

"almost drowned one of the Convicts who could not Swim, fell off the Raft and pushed me along with him, in which case we Should both have drowned if I could not have Swimmed - for the Raft went over us both and I was obliged to Swim back the Shore with him holding fast to me by the waistband of my Trousers - when I got on Shore he was almost dead but he Soon Recovered on which I took a Stick out of one of the Sergeant's hands and gave him a sound thrashing for pulling me off the Raft with him. ..." [The Journal and Letters of Lt. Ralph Clark 1787-1792, (eds. Paul G. Fidlon and R. J. Ryan,) Sydney, 1981, p.122.]

In Clark's case being a Man of Feeling gave him an excuse to lose control of his emotions.

So, is politeness really a good thing, as John Eliot was rudely trying to tell the country the other night on one of our national TV channels?

PB.

Australian History Wars?

A friend of mine has asked me if I was going to do a post on the dreaded Australian History Wars. Well, no, not really. I think they're a bit passe. But to explain that I better explain what I think they were. Essentially they were attacks by certain ultra right wing (or lazy and/or sloppy) historians on the research findings in Aboriginal History over the past twenty odd years or so. These attacks questioned the accuracy of that research, especially in regard to the numbers of Aborigines killed in massacres, (with a little bit of carping about footnoting.) They also queried whether mass killings of Aborigines amounted to genocide. The latter is a very ticklish question, because it depends on what your definition of genocide is, and arguably that part of the debate very much remains open, in terms of the historical debate.
To my mind, the more interesting question is, why the History Wars happened in the first place. And the answer to that is political. They were cooked up to justify a right wing agenda against Aboriginal rights under the former Howard Government. And, for a while, they worked, despite the fact that they were ably refuted by several eminent Australian historians.
But nowadays? From my reading in some recent Aboriginal history, I'd say they've almost faded away. Historians who know their stuff in this area have simply chosen to ignore this nonsensical debate. Its died down in the yellow press now that a Labor Government is in power, because there is no political mileage in it anymore. Which goes to show how insubstantial the debate was in the first place.

Update: link to review of Bruce Pascoe's Convincing Ground -
Convincing Ground: Learning to fall in Love with your Country by Bruce Pascoe

Popeye and The Monster

Hi. This my first post. I should explain the post's title first I suppose. Popeye is what I got tagged with by the Brothers at De La Salle Marrickville, years ago when I was about six or seven years old in the dim, distant past. Monster is my (now deceased) chihuahua. It's a good as time to remember him as any, I guess.
So, what's this blog going to be about? Well, history, I guess. My main area of interest at the moment is the American Revolution and its connection to Australia, and eighteenth century England from about 1750 but I'm also very interested in Australian Colonial History, 1787-1792, Aboriginal history and the history of Australia during World War 2. In fact, I've written a book on the last subject - The Brisbane Line Controversy. Its out of print now, but you can still buy it on line. I write occasional book reviews for the Review of Australian Studies, mainly on WW2 and Aboriginal history, but some cultural history as well.
I'm also into movies, books, especially history books and politics. I'm a leftie. In fact I'm a socialist, and a member of Socialist Alliance. So there'll probably be a few posts on politics from a left, and sometimes socialist perspective, as well.
I also comment regularly on Larvatus Prodeo.
So far, I'm not very good on linking stuff, but I'll get there.
I guess that's enough for starters.
See ya.

Update: Link to Remembering Aboriginal Heroes book review discussed below, - I hope.

Remembering Aboriginal Heroes: Struggle, Identity and the Media by John Ramsland & Christopher Moon