Log in

No account? Create an account

The Past | The Previous

the fatal shore continued.

i was wrong. this book is six hundred dense pages. it's actually quite a good book, and if anyone has an urge to read upon australian convict history, this is the place to start. but this is the last of these books for me. when you start crossing your info at the rate of ten pages or so, unless we're talking bushrangers in tasmania, it's either time to hit those primary sources or move to the next lot. me: next lot. though my history teachers always said i could study history...

to continue.

chapter seven: bolters and bushrangers.

to most, i am sure, the history of the australian bushranger, would begin and end with ned kelly, his suit of armour, that he was irish, and that there was a shoot out in the end and they blew out his legs. a good shoot out at the end is pretty important to the scheme of things, and bushrangers fill much the same niche as a cowboy in american colonial history. but, like the kelly shoot out in the end, ned and his brothers were at the end of time of bushrangers, as trains were coming around and this burst of technology coupled with the further colonisation of the country, thus limited the empty areas to hide, pretty much brought in the end of the time for the bushranger.

but hughes, however, brings the story of bushrangers without ned, beginning with bolters. bolters being those convicts who... well, bolted. most of them thought they'd hit china over the mountains, or inland, which says a lot about their intelligence to me, and the bleached bones of their bodies would be found inland later. soon, however, bolters turned into bushrangers, who, due to the starvation of the colony, would trap and kill in the wild, and come back and trade with settlers on the fringe. most of them smelt, wore dirty skins, had their own skinned blackened, and in very few cases, robbed from the rich to give to the poor.

still, the bushranger myth is a good one, and at least one of the tasmanian gangs was close to being the robin hood, and that was matthew brady, who was eventually caught and hung, while women wept and people wrote to pardon him. there is a great story about him making sure no gang member would rape a woman, and when they raiding a house, one of his fellow gang members went to harm a woman and brady put a bullet in his hand. excellent story. i'm surprised no one has ever made more of this guy, but then maybe they have and i haven't heard it.

another fellow was michael howe, who ended in a small shoot out. what made his story interesting was his unintentional wounding of his pregnant aboriginal wife, black mary. mary survived this, but was left behind by howe (who was being pursued at the time), and after mary gave birth, she lead a posse after her ex lover, tracking him through the wilderness. she didn't catch him, but still.

it's a shame my thesis isn't about writing a bushranger novel. i'd do brady's, because his death in the end resonates so well, and because he became, for such a short time, the mythic bushranger figure that robin hood became. and which ned kelly failed to become, mostly due to the fact that he wasn't as charismatic as most would like. and yes, there is more in this chapter about how they came about, but i've gotten carried away. though i seriously doubt the chapter is of any use, since the most interesting parts of bushrangers originate in tasmania. kelly himself was in victoria.

chapter eight: bunters, mollies and sable brethren.

bunters: term for women.

in parramatta, there was a female factory, where pregnant and ugly women were sent to do their time. in what sounds like a horrible place, women were worked and treated poorly, their only hope to be picked for marriage (and in a colony where the men far out numbered the women, this meant far less than you'd hope) and were treated, in the colony and out, as prostitutes and worse. only women married were considered real women, and this number was something like thirty percent of the female population. the rest of them were whores, though none were convicted of prostitution and sent over, as it was not a transportable offence.

women had it harsh. in other chapters hughes notes that 'proper' women would not get a tan, or loose their pale completion, as that was what convict women did. in fact, i would say, that perhaps the worse lot of the early colonial life was that of the woman.

mollies: term for homosexuals.

in colonial australia, homosexuality was, despite its many occurrences, the crime of crimes, most because it originated in the hulks of transport ships and in the chain gangs and prisons, where it was not an act of love, or tenderness, but rather an act of power. in the prison system, hughes argues, this was how one prisoner gained power over another, by forcibly taking him. i suppose it's no real surprise that homosexuality outside prisons had such a hard time, especially in a convict society, where by rumour alone (for few in prison testified about it) consigned the act to the already tried and found guilty for their lack of morals, the convicts.

it was apparently also strong out in sheepherders, who would have to rely upon their fellow sheepherder to keep them alive at night and for simply having someone to talk too. i mention this here, mainly to present a different view of homosexuality, one that did not rely upon violence.

sable brethren: term for aborigines.

as already discussed, the convicts view of aborigines, and their hatred for a group of naked men and women who had more social standing than them. sad, really, but hardly surprising, especially if you spend your days in chains.

chapter nine: the government stroke.

in the early years on colonial life, it was macquarie who gave a sense of dignity to the convicts, and made sure that they were more than slaves, which was close to what they were under the rum brigade. a convict had rights, and he and she had the right to be treated with a certain respect, and as macquarie rightly saw, the future of the country would be formed by these people. and convicts, for their part, would much prefer to be sent to work for an emancipist, who was a convict who had done his time.

convict assignments were given out under land and need, which meant a large portion of them stayed with the government, especially if they had a trade. the built buildings and roads, and the road through parramatta and up the blue mountains was done in six months by a group of convicts who were promised a pardon at the end of it, if they did it in time. this meant clearing trees, building bridges. assentive works miracles.

after macquarie, this rather pleasant view of convicts changed. and it was macquarie's changes in stance with convicts, making australia seem less like a threat to the criminal class in britain, that eventually saw him dethroned, so to say.

chapter ten: gentlemen of new south wales.

the first white australians born went by the nickname of the currency, for they were, after all, the future of the country. born from emancipists and convicts, they came into conflict with the upper crust of sydney, with the nickname of sterlings, who tried so very hard to model their life upon the rich of england, though of course no true aristocrat of england would be caught dead in australia at that time.

class conflict like this has always been part of the australian culture bit, and often results in the cutting down of tall poppies, usually in a most cruel and unnecessary manner. but still, it has always been there. due to the early positioning of the colony and its complete lack of planning, the rich were located upon the northern side, while the poor, convict and emancipists alike, and their children, were often located in the west. a trend which has continued through the years, with the current exception now being that of the blue mountains, where prices are going up and quite a few of the rich from the inner city and north shore are heading. lead by musician paul mac after he burnt down his apartment, no doubt.

anyhow. that's that for this moment. about two hundred odd pages left, work to be done today--essays to mark, wallpaper to watch peel--so this will likely be done around Monday. maybe earlier. i hope.


( 2 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
May. 24th, 2002 06:57 pm (UTC)
I'm interested to know just how much faith you put in ths account of homosexuality. I'm a bit skeptical myself. I can't help but wonder if that line of argument is derived from a homophobic agenda if one were to look deeper into the facts. Does he provide any proof to support his "buggering your way to prison dominance in 10 easy lessons" hypothesis?

Consider this:
The idea that sexual acts are derived from a desire for power has a long history and is popular in society becuase it provides a reason for violent sexual acts that we can be more comfortable with. It provides a context in which we can understand and demonise the motivations of the offender and it also describes the victim in a certain way which I won't get into here. However I have never come across much proof in the literature that really supports this theory, nor does it seem to naturally extend from any theory of personality or abnormal psychology that I've ever been taught. For this reason I think, the idea is less popular with academics than it once was even if people in professions dealing with victims, the ones most to benefit from such an easily digested theory, still utilise it. I don't think anyone who deals with the offenders uses this idea in their work with them. Is the author simply providing an easily digested theory of homosexuality?

What proof could be found of this, possible unconscious, homophobia? For argument's sake lets say it was about dominance. What language does he use to describe what went on in those boats? If it really was violent rather than romantic then why is it referred to as homosexuality? Is rape of women described by him as seduction? Would being attacked with a frying pan be described as cooking? I have a problem with my sex life being lumped in the same category as criminal violence. But this distinction would be lost on someone who sees my sex life as a criminal offence anyway, not that I'm accusing him of that but you get the point.

If you wanted to be king of the convicts how would you do it? By fucking your way to the top? I doubt it. There are other ways of dominating people that require far less physical commitment on the part of the oppressor. So maybe those guys were gay, maybe sexuality isn't an all or nothing affair and anyone has it within them to be sexually interested in anyone else and being locked in a boat for a year is a good way of finding that out. But an intrinsic homophobia would reject this unconsciously and seek a different explanation. Just as robots are depicted as gay in order to defuse the threat they present to male dominance so too might ordinary blokes who have sex with each other be depicted as taking part in a violent struggle for dominace rather than having a genuine interest in each other. An explanation that, similarly, upholds the myth of the real heterosexual man. And be aware that this explanation needn't be imposed upon events by people external to the hot sweaty action, the guards or the historians, but may also be adopted by the men in question who are forced to reconcile their own opinions of masculinity with their desire. The latter doesn't make the theory true but it probably does fit in more with what we know about the way people think.
May. 24th, 2002 08:22 pm (UTC)
i don't really put a whole heap of faith into the homosexuality prison bit, but that i mean that the people in prison were all involved in power struggle buggering that translates to homosexuality. (which it doesn't.) there were probably gay men in there, but it wasn't a prison product.

in this however, i'm really just paraphrasing what hughes writes. i condensed, for example, into one paragraph what he takes ten or ffiteen pages to discuss. however, what i do think i might have not made clear was that he wasn't talking about what happened for the men involved in the actions, but rather how it was perceived in the community. because you are quite right: a man raping another man is not homosexuality, it's rape. and hughes does mention men who teated each other with affection, as lovers do.
( 2 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )