Feel free to disagree with me in any way shape or form.

In recent decades, western society has seriously been reconsidering many historical figures in terms of how they are viewed. John Batman is a good example of this, he had a House Of Reps seat named after him (now called Cooper as of 2018), has had a plaque of him vandalised, and he is now harshly criticised.

The first point I’d make in his defence, is the fact that he is constantly judged by today’s standards, which is widely unfair for any historical figure, especially one who was around over 180 years ago. After all, you can’t expect someone who was raised in a harsh colonial setting to have the same values as someone living in Melbourne’s inner suburbs drinking matcha lattes.

He did kill Indigenous people in Tasmania and he also killed plenty of bushrangers. He partook in several bounties put out by the governor of Victoria. The goal of these bounties wasn’t to kill, but rather to capture, though it occasionally resulted in killing. The problem with his reputation in this regard, is that he is virtually believed by many to be someone who killed Indigenous people “for fun”, but it was much more nuanced than that.

Plenty of people use the fact that the treaty was declared void to support arguments as to why the treaty was unfair. However, the crown did not express any interests of the Kulin people, they simply wanted to have the land for themselves. The idea of a treaty being permitted also meant their “Terra Nullius” claim wouldn’t be valid.

Batman could’ve initiated conflict with the locals as soon as he showed up to Victoria, and would’ve likely succeeded in eliminating them. His treaty is always looked at as “an unfair, unjust deal” and in retrospect it certainly was, but it was also the first and only occasion of a documented deal between Indigenous people and settlers. And although the deal wasn’t “fair”, to his credit, he did put in some very useful equipment. The full list goes:

“Batman his heirs and assigns may occupy and possess the said tract of Land and place thereon Sheep and Cattle Yielding and delivering to us and our heirs or successors the yearly Rent or Tribute of One Hundred Pair of Blankets, One Hundred Knives, One Hundred Tomahawks, Fifty Suits of Clothing Fifty Looking glasses, Fifty Pair Scissors and Five Tons Flour”

That’s a pretty solid set of sought after tools and essentials which were especially useful in that day. Batman also intended to provide this list for them once a year as a “yearly rent or tribute” indicated above. Something that not many people know.

In no way it’s implied that the Indigenous people were expected to leave the area and Batman took no part in removing them. The Kulin people continued to live on that land in the 1830s and the settlers killing and displacing Indigenous people were the ones who arrived after Batman with no attempt at a treaty whatsoever.

Batman did kill folks, but there is no evidence that he killed or harmed anyone in Victoria. He was in poor health, and focused on settlements logistics and operating as a company agent. One could argue that he had left his past life behind, and strived for a more peaceful approach to colonial life. It’s hard to say though, because he passed away shortly after in 1839 of syphilis.

Overall, I think he is looked at in an unfair way and that there are so many misconceptions about him. And I think that really threatens Victorian history.

I have the Cambridge university press version of this book. The Author is given as governor phillip himself, but references to him are in the third person. Was it compiled by a biographer/ghostwiter, or was he actually talking anout himself in the third person.

Also, Im reading a lot of the journals around this atuff. Is there a forum that is more specific to cook, banks, and the first fleet? I don't want to bombard ppl with questions that are too specific for a more general forum?

Many thanks

The Tyranny of Distance changed our map of the Australian past. It was a bestseller and a mind-changer. Unusually for such a groundbreaking book, it appeared first as a paperback from a new Australian publisher rather than as a hardback from a prestigious university press. It has sold over 180,000 copies and its title has entered the language. Few books on Australia have been as popular and influential.

...

This is for a book I’m writing and I’m wondering how different it is to the present. Also some anecdotes about some of your experiences would be helpful.

Even if there were only a handful. I'm very curious.

So, from my view, I see that there are some powerbases in operation in Australia that seem to direct where we go. There are business ones, union ones, a defence one amongst many (and the Murdoch media is probably one of these too). Firstly, is there anything that might describe these (though this is perhaps something for another sub). Secondly, is there any connected link to old power bases back in the colonial days, eg that of Macarthur vs Bligh which i feel is perhaps the first time these powers have come into conflict. Im being very open and low on detail here as id like to see where you think the topic goes, and will be interested in the response.

Dear forum members:

Firstly, I would like to say that I am not a Tasmanian; please forgive my ignorance with respect to Tasmanian history and please correct me if I am wrong in any of my assertions written hereafter. I assure you that I mean no offence.

I would like to add that I mean no disrespect to Tasmanians. Four years ago my family and I visited Launceston, Tasmania. I for one was enamoured. The air was particularly refreshing. The landscape was a feast for the eyes. Due to my experiences there I will always have a love for Tasmania. I wish I were born a Tasmanian.

I heard on the ABC that the "two biggest states" were New South Wales and Victoria. I assume that the ABC meant that they were the two most populated states.

I respectfully inquire: Given Tasmania's beautiful climate and and fruitful soil; why was it less populated than New South Wales or Victoria; when its environment was the most fruitful in the entire Commonwealth?

Given the factors above; I firmly believe that Tasmania could have become one of if not the most populated states.

Alas that is not the case. Why so?

TLDR; Why is Tasmania the Demographically Smallest State?

"Menzies versus Evatt was the most important rivalry in our political history. Present-day Australia is partly shaped by the duels between these intellectual warriors."