History Sources for Unit 3, AOS 1: (1830-1860)

•Ideas underpinning the settlement of and migration to the Port Phillip District,
including ideas about European expansion in the new world and land ownership,
and the motivations of some individuals and groups- Up to 1860.
______________________________________________________________________________

Push Factors-James Boyce in ‘The Founding of Melbourne and the Conquest of

Australia’
contends that in England in 1835 “Accelerating urbanisation and industrialism
were not yet accompanied by any consistant rise in living standards”
He also states that “It was a fortuitous time for an ambitious young working-
class man to make the move south”

-The Port Phillip Association, according to George Arthur, had the object of “the
civilisation of the natives”

-Punch 15th of July 1848 sees a cartoon ‘Here and There’ which depicts two
images, one of desolation and starvation, being England, and the other seeing
social connectednedness and generosity, evoking images of wealth, being
Australia. This cartoon and many accompanying artices are suggestive of a
more prosperous life will await emgirants from England, compared to the sub-
par living conditions and economic uncertainty in which they are reading from.

-Richard Broome in describing the significance of squatters by the end of the

1840’s seizing nearly twenty-million hectares of land of Aboriginals- “one of the
fastest land occupations in the history of empires”

-Colonialism incorporates, according to Albert Memmi, a “non-legitimate

privileged person(Colonizer)” that argues “with vehemence to appear heroic and
great”.

-Thomas Henty and his family pineered the expansion into the Southern Coast
at Portland in 1834, their motives for the migration to the Port Phillip District
included a poor state of agriculture and virtually no prospects for wealth in any
economical sense in England, Henty also spoke of a “Property Tax” which was
to be introduced, further compounding life in England. Henty cited a friend of
his- John Street who had recently emigrated to Australia in search of a better
life, and asked questions relating to the profitability of the land.

-James Henty, Thomas’ son, in a letter to another son outlined the arguments
for emigration including “a fine climate” and that their money will go much
further than it would in England. Furthermore, ideas of class distinctions are
introduced as James claims that “we shall be placed in the first Rank in
Society”

-An observation by John Norcock in 1836 described the Port Phillip District as a
“lovely picture...one of the richest pastoral countries in the world”
-The impact of European settlement on the Aboriginal communities of Port
Phillip and their responses to it.
______________________________________________________________________________

-Legal ambiguity at the time in relation to Aboriginals land rights, The Port
Phillip Association argued that land of the Aboriginals was “Within the limits of
the British Territory of New Holland” and therefore Aboriginals could ‘sell’ the
land, this was an argument made that would legalize the ‘treaty’ that John
Batman forged with the Aboriginals in relation to land.

-Joseph Gellibrand, a member of the Port Phillip Association who was killed by
Aboriginies painted a scathing picture of the intentions of his group-”We
attempt to colonize not by knocking the Aboriginies on the head but by buying
their property and endeavouring to induce industrious habits”

-Thomas Bannister argued to uphold Aboriginal rights

-John Batman, in writing a letter to Arthur, said that “The chiefs appeared most
fully to comprehend my proposals” Furthermore, he said that “my object has not
been possession and expulsion...but, possession and civilisation, and the
reservation of the annual tribute to those who are the real owners of the soil
[Aboriginies]”

-‘The Colonized’ picture by S.T Gill depicts a negative stance towards

colonization as an Aboriginal is depicted as undertaking harsh labour under the
command of a White settler and too the plight of a young Aborginal child
carrying a bucket full of water to a settler house.

-John Batman noted in encountering Aboriginals for the first time-the Tribe was
“Afraid I should take them by force and ill-use them...” As other Tribes had been
used before.

-Charles Griffith, a Port Phillip settler, asserted through his writing that “the
savage” (Aboriginals)-leave “unimproved the splendid domains spread out
before them”, whereas the “civilised man” would improve the “unproductive
country” and thus enact the “duties the savage has for centuries neglected”. In
essense, this primary source hints at the ‘Doctrine of Improvement’ which many
settlers justified for the taking of land which belonged to Aboriginals and
improving the land and profiting from it, thus fuelling progress, which was a
great ambition for many emerging Nations at the time.

-William Hull, a Port Phillip settler, commented that “no tribe can...maintain a
right to the soil, unless it profitably occupies it...”- Only further cementing the
notion of the ‘Doctrine of Improvement’

-Warrigal Creek massacre- Angus McMillan led the slaughter of the Aboriginies.
Example of fierce clashes between the Aboriginal population and the White
settlers.

-James Dredge argued in a pamphlet in 1845, on the contrary, that

-Yet some settlers also acknowledged partial sophistcation in Aboriginals using
and taking advantage of the land, such as John Batman as he described the
Aborginal’s ‘eel traps’ as “well done and well planned out”.

-Historian Robert Kenny suggests it was “Mutual interest” for the Kulin Tribe
and the Settlers, this was because he argued that “clan-heads” informatively
limited the amount of settlers in Port Phillip to curtail the destruction which
had been previously witnessed.

-Richard Broome, a historian, noted that while the Kulin “May appear to us as
victims of a poor deal”, they knew the value of trading items such as flour.

Protector William Thomas suggested that infanticide was being practiced

through despair at the loss of country, revealing the sheer scale of the impact
on Aboriginals that White settlers had.

Source from ‘The Other Side of the Frontier:Aboriginal resistance to the

Invasion of Australia’-Henry Reynolds reveals a potent story of despair “me
tumble down and die very soon now.”

-G.M. Langhorne to Colonial Secretary on the 30th April 1838- “natives are
deprived in great measure of the kangaroo, their principle food”-Aboriginals
were robbed of their primary food source and this their very way of ife.

-Another Impact was as James Boyce asserts, was the rationing of food and
protection of Aboriginals, which was positive for Aboriginal’s in the sense that it
gave them a sense of secruity. This was a direct result of John Batman’s treaty
he struck with Aboriginals. “handing over the desired goods to Aborigines,
including flour, sugar, tea, tobacco and blankets, was widespread on the
Australian frontier”

Yet this positive situation in the sense of secruity for Aboriginals slowly
dissapeared as the virtues of the treaty were lost as new leaders came about....
Also in August 1836 PAGE 70

-Another huge impact on the Aboriginal’s was the loss of land. For example in
1837 Alexander Mollison moved 5 thousand sheep, 634 cattle, 28 working
bullocks and 22 horses deep into Aboriginal territory.

-In ‘A History of the Port Phillip District’ Shaw argues that by 1842 half of the
Port Phillip District and most of the best grasslands was occupied by white
settlers.

-This mass occupation of land had drastic repercussions for the Aborginal
tribes in the Port Phillip District, according to Joseph Orton-A missionary, in
1839, he observed that Aboriginies were “almost in a state of starvation and
can only obtain food day by day, by begging”. Orton contends that this vast
suffering of Aboriginal people was due to an “encroachment of settlers”.
-One response of the Aborginal tribes was an increase of violence. Source
‘Phillip G.King et al. to Gipps, 8 June 1838-”certain tribes...assumed a hostile
attitude toward the settlers and have commited many murders and other
outrages upon them”

-Niel Black noted in December of 1839 that to take up a run, it was necessary to
“slaughter natives right and left”.

-These brutal killings and vast dispersal of Aboriginies was deplored by

comparatively sympathetic settlers such as Alexander Mollison and Annie
Baxter.

James Boyce in ‘The founding of Melbourne and the Conquest of Australia’

asserts that:
-Unlike Katherine Kirklands descriptions of an ugly land, most saw it as a
bountiful and beautiful one. He uses the primary source of Batmans report to
Lieutenant Governer Arthur in 1835 of a “(land so favourable are the soil and
climate to vegetation...most luxuriant”, in addition to this he quotes John
Pascoe Fawkner with “a land flowing with milk and honey”.

James Willis dreamed of “building chimneys...and London.”- Highlighting an idea

which underpinned the settlement of Port Phillip, to recreate England, albiet a
more just society, free from class divisions etc..

History Sources for AOS 2: (1888-1914)

-The hopes and fears which helped create the new nation and shaped ideas
about citizenship, belonging and responsibilities
______________________________________________________________________________

-One distinct hope which underpinned the creation of the new nation and
helped to establish ground for Federation was that Australia could be a land of
egalitarian values and principles, this being a land of democracy and equality.
In 1887, ‘The Bulletin’ stated that those who leave the “tyrant-ridden lands of
Europe” and the “memory of the class-distinctions” are “Australians before they
set foot on the ship that brings them here”. This is representative of the hope
the Australian’s could unify and transcend above the materialistic values of
Europe and forge a nation based on equality for all.

-Nationalism was a growing concept for Victoria- That is the desire to be a

nation, a feeling of belongiong to a particular country. A Federation poster in
1899 titled “To the Australian Born.”, again establishing a sense of
connectedness, cited arguements for establishing a new nation-”Australia is
our home. Our aspiration is to make Australia great.” Source- ‘William Brooks &
Co’

-A unique Australian identity was needed for the creation of the new Australian
nation, a majority of the population had to be Australian-born, this according to
‘Australians Historical Statistics-Fairfax’ in 1987, happened in 1880.

-The distinctive flora and fauna attracted artists such as Fredrick McCubbin,
who, along with other artists, formed the Heidelburg School and painted both
the bush, and pioneers of the bush.

-The use of Australian motifs, symbols and language in everyday life

encouraged people to identify with Australia as a whole. Thw works of Henry
Lawson and A.B. Patterson such as ‘The Drover’s Wife’ and “The Man from
Snowy River’ expressed an awareness of the Australian landscape and a way of
life associated with the bush.

-The processes of inclusion and exclusion which formed a nation of Australian

citizens up to 1914

Legislation at the time:

Immigration Restriction Act 1901
Pacific Island Labourers Act 1901
Franchise Act 1902

The Customs Tariff Act 1902

Concilliation and Arbitration Act 1904
Tariffs Acts and New Protection 1905-1907
Invalid and Old Age Pension Act 1908
Defence Act Amendment 1909
Maternity Allowance Act 1912
-The benefits and responsibilities extended to those who belonged to the new
nation, including work, education and welfare legislation, women and
motherhood, national defence and conscription.
______________________________________________________________________________

WW2 AOS 3: (1914-1950)

-The chosen crisis and the ways in which Australians responded to that
crisis
-The extent to which this crisis shook old certainties and provided
opportunities for people to argue for change
-The extent to which the cohesion of Australian society was maintained
or redefined by the experience of the crisis.

-Described as a ‘Total War’, its origins were the Treaty of Versailles, rise
of various politcal ideologies coupled with a rise in the notion of
nationalism, new alliances and economic effects of the great depression.

-The War was to alter both the political landscape-domestically and

internationally- and from experiences of depression/War, a new vision
would emerge- the new vision of post-war Australia.

-A correlation was drawn in the early stages of the War in the sense that
in both Australia and Britain, communists and large sections of the trade-
union, and the intellecutal opinion initially had grave reservations about
the War.

-Ideas of rationing and austerity were apparent during WW2, the concept
was to curve inflation and thus ensure an equal and equitable
distribution of food and clothing. The pressure put on to Australian
society was also in the form of ‘spend less’ to sacrifice for War loans,
every effort was made to support the war. John Curtin was a fierce
advocate for rationing and contended that self-sacrifice allowed for a
concentration on the war effort.
Mr Dedman- The Minister for War Organisation of Industry stated in 1942
in a piece in The Age on 7th November that it was “inappropriate” for a
“period of luxury spending at the same time as the Government is urging
austerity”.

The community response to these wartime controls was a combination

of respect and anger, a letter to the The Argus which was published on
12th September 1942 by Julia Lloyd Belgrave vented her anger over the
measures lablling them as a “disgrace to Australia”. Despite this fierce
opposition, some daily newspapers called for an easing into these
measures in an attempt to reasure the Australian public over these
concerns. The Argus on the 5th of September 1942- “begin early to teach
the children to go without soft drinks and ice-cream”.

-W.M. Hughes-Australian Attorney General at the time, passed through

Parliament two National Secruity Acts, which like acts pertaining to
WW1, clothed the Government with very wide-ranging emergency powers
to make regulations having the force of law. Compulsory military
training for home defence was immediately re-introduced under the
existing Defence Act.

-One of the first reactions to the beginning of the War and Germany’s
invasion of Denmark and Norway was Australian Prime Minister Robert
Menzies issuing a National Secruity regulation making the Communist
Party an illigal organisation.

Shook old certainties in the sense that although Australia had an

inherent fear of invasion due to having a relatively small population and
little defence mechanisms appart from support of the Mother country, it
was the first time this fear eventuated as a string of Japanese assualts
ensued. Such as the 1942 bombing of Darwin by over 80 Japanese
planes, effect on Australian society was mild because, at the time, the
government censored the extent of the damage in Darwin, for a number
of reasons-To reduce anger and outrage, avoid a depressed nation from
being reduced to utter melancholy- and thus reduce social cohesion.

-3 months after this, Sydney Harbour was attacked through Japanese

midget submarines.

-The Melbourne Sun on the 2nd of September 1939 positioned its readers
for war with a large image of the English King, reigniting notions of
Empire loyalty and the idea that Australian ties to England were still
strong.

-W.J. McKell suggests in the Sydney Morning Herald on the 6th of

September 1939 that the war will be “more calamitous than the last”.

-Source- D.Jenkins in ‘Hitting Home’ reveals the potent story of a young

school boy who endured the attacks on Sydney in 1942- with “I remember
the rumble” along with many other heartfelt scenes of chaos and
confusion.

-WW2 shook the very certainty of a stable, prosperous Nation which it

had prided itself on. The raids and attacks triggered a degree of panic
among the civilian population. British power had retreated from Asia,
leaving Australia in an eery feeling. In August 1942, The government had
believed the threat of invasion had passed yet still promoted fear-
inspiring posters and statements surrounding the idea of invasion. This
was seen well into 1943, when Prime Minister John Curtin stated that
“The war...could not be waged without ruthlessness.”-the effect on
Australian society was a uniting one and the nation was motivated to
continue to accept the daily life restrictions placed upon them as a
result of the war.

-WW2 marked an important step for full gender equality in Australia. As

the War progressed, women were encouraged to join workforces in which
they had never been expected to join before. By the middle of 1943 over
840,000 women were in paid employment in Australia such as Vida
O’Donnell who according to ‘HIdden Lives: Stories of Everyday Australia-
World War 2’ was “transferred from the blending bay to the Big Gun Press
House to undertake work usually reserved for men”.

-Shook old certainty of role of women in Australian society, for the first
time, women were able to serve in the auxiliary forces of the Army, Navy
and Airforce. Such as the ‘Women’s Auxiliary Australia Air Force (WAAAF)

-Shook the old certainty that England was Australia’s only defence and
sole ‘parent nation’, as the American presence during WW2
demonstrated, America reagarded Australia as a good ally. Over 1 million
American servicemen and women passed through Australia during WW2,
Australia had a new form of protection and new ally.

-As a result of this huge increase of American presence, an increase in

American goods and popular culture ensued, Australians were exposed
to products such as chewing gum, hamburgers, coffee and Coca-Cola,
furthermore the joys of comics such as superman for younger
generations was much apprectiated.

-Another shake up was for the first time, Aborginies had been permitted
to serve in the War as enlistment regulations were relaxed in 1942 as the
need for more labour and manpower increased. Thousands were
employed in the Northen Territory as civilian workers on roads and
airports, while historians estimate approximately 3000 served in the
armed forces.

-Significant source!!> Quoted in R.Hall, ‘Fighters from the Fringe’

Canberra, 1995.
Lt Reg Saunders- An Aboriginal solider in WW2 explains why was was
prepared to fight in the war- “I was always loyal to my country...[but] I
don’t owe allegiance or loyalty to the Queen of England. They tried to
bloody destroy me”
These shake-up’s of old certainties led to arguments for change:
A platform for change was brought about from the changes in WW2
-Argue for change in the sense of Aboriginal rights, sucessful because
these arguments were key to the 1967 ‘Aboriginal referendum’, greater
espect for Aboriginal peoples.
-Women’s role in society.
-Increased racial acceptance.
-
Vietnam War AOS 4:
-A range of attitudes at each point in time

1965 Sources:
-Australian Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies stated that North
Vietnamese power which encapsulated notions of communism was a
direct military threat and that it should be delt with immediately, thus a
troop battalion would be sent. The number of troops would sharply
increase over the coming years.

-Arthur Calwell opposed the conscription introduced by Menzies, and

labeled it as a form of “Russian roulette”.

-‘The Australian’ noted that the decision to enter the war in Vietnam was
“reckless” and stated that “historians will recall this day with tears” on
the 30th of April 1965.

-‘The Age’ on the other hand and on the same date argued that Menzies
decision was a result of “inescapable obligations” and there was “no
alternative but to respond as we have”.

-Youth Campaign Against Conscription (YCAC)

-Barry Heard is evidence of rural communities in Australia being in full

support of the War as he said “It was endorsed by the Country Party, so
that was that.”

-Forward defence strategy was justified to sabotage the looming threat

of a communist advancement through Asia and on to Australia, the
“Domino Theory” was used by Menzies. To quell this threat was deemed
of high importance by Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies and was
strongly supported by the Australian community, evidence of this can be
seen in the Morgan Gallup Poll in September of 1965 where 56% were in
favour of the war, compared to only 42% in 1970. Furthermore, there is
evidence that the Australian community accepted the justification for
the war, John Warry in a letter to the editor and published on the 25th of
May 1965 exclaimed the decision as one of “courageous determination.
-The connections between the two significant points in time

-The degree of change in attitudes between the two significant points

and the reasons for any change.
-Change was very signifcant, from a mostly supportive community of
Australia’s military commitment to the war, a huge turnaround occured,
in that now, a large majority of Australian society was against the war.

-One reason for the change was the increasing media coverage of the
events which took place in Vietnam, images of violence and chaos which
had never been exposed to the Australian community was now thrust
into the media spotlight. This enabled individuals to gain a valuable
insight into the complexities of Australia’s commitment, the media
coverage of the violence and atrocities commited in Vietnam was
accentuated by the horror of the My Lai massacre and the failed Tet
Offensive. Gregory Pemberton stated that the “issue of morality” in
relation to the atrocities in Vietnam drew the communities concern with
the “question of its apparent futility”.

-The regular deaths of Australian soldiers.

-International pressure through abhorrence of any commitment to the

War.
1970 Sources: A time of obloquy.
-The moratorium movements, the largest of which was in Melbourne on
the 8th of May, where at least 70,000 protestors (Contested albeit by
Donald Horne whom argued a crowd between 80,000 to 100,000
protested) participated filling many of the central streets of Melbourne in
fierce opposition to the War. These protests took place around Australia
in a show of support against the war.

-Gregory Pemberton contends that the Government was worried about

the moratorium movements because they had lost “moral ascndancy in
the debate”

-Groups such as the ‘Save Our Sons’ and ‘New Left’ campaigned strongly
for a resolution to the war and argued for the return of Australian
soilders.
-Gregory Pemberton also argues that the Labor party and the ‘Australian
Council of Trade Unions’ pushed more strongly on the Vietnam issue than
ever before.

-Michael Sexton stated that by the end of the 1960’s “public support
began to erode sharply”

-Morgan Gallup Poll in October 1970 sees only 42% of respondants to the
poll in support of the Vietnam War. Contrast to 1965.

-Discussion in the Australian Finacial Review surrounding conscription

on the 7th of April 1970 was mixed. On the one hand, the editorial
suggested for the retention of National Service and for its “improvement
and expansion” whilst John Edwards contends that “Conscription
is...inefficient, inequitable and expensive”.

-The Age on the 9th of May 1970 stated that the Moratorium movements
had the “concern of human agony” and that it was a “legitimate
expression of opinion by a substantial section of the population”. The
Sydney Morning Herald although contended in a critical tone that the
movement caused “unwarranted inconvenience” on the following day (7th
of May).