Welcome

Hey, welcome to my blog! Hope you enjoy.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Ethnocentricity and conflict

In the colonisation of Australia, the British’s ethnocentricity caused conflict and many other problems. When an ethnocentric group of people colonize another land and perceive the people of that land to be inferior to them, their ethnocentric ways will cause them to have no respect for the native culture, and they will try and convert the locals to their culture. This is what happened in the colonization of Australia. The British came to Australia and they saw these so-called ‘animals’; the Aboriginal people. The British thought that their culture, religion and ways were the best and far better than the savage, barbaric way of life the Aborigines had. So they took control of the land and called themselves Australians. The first problems arose when the Australians thought they were killing off the aborigines. One elder Australian decided to kill McIntyre, a gamekeeper. He believed that McIntyre was killing aborigines. Also, the aborigines were frustrated at how their culture and ways were being changed and almost taken over by the British lifestyle. They thought that killing McIntyre would both stop the killing of aborigines and intimidate the British. But all it did was enrage the British more. The British were angry that people had spoken out against them and wanted total control. So governor Phillip sent out a party to kill and behead the aborigines he believed were responsible. This shows the British’s completely ruthless and bloody nature. It is clear that the British want control and are willing to do whatever it takes to gain control. They are angry that someone had the nerve to challenge the dominance of their culture and lifestyle. But the aborigines are justified in their actions. Everyone fears change, and in this case the aborigines had to speak out or else their land and lifestyle would soon be completely taken over by the British. This whole dual perspective is what causes conflict. In the end, who is right?

The second instance of ethnocentricity causing conflict is when the Australians decide to uproot all the local crops and in their place plant wheat and corn. This shows the Australian’s disregard for the native lifestyle, and a desire to have complete control. When the Australians replaced all the local crops and replaced them with crops from Britain like wheat and corn, they were basically contributing to the depletion of the aborigines’ food source. If all their food and crops are gone, what can they eat? They can try to eat the Australians’ food, but like in The Rabbits, it could make them sick and cause an epidemic to break out. In this act, the Australians were not thinking about the situation from the aboriginals’ point of view at all. They were so fixed on the notion that their British culture and lifestyle were the best that they wanted to replicate every little detail of it in New South Wales, as they called it. This went all the way to planting the same crops and bringing the same animals over to Australia. The Australians, however, were completely clueless about the consequences of their actions. The Aborigines, led by Pemulwuy, burnt down all the crop fields and war broke out. They did not appreciate the Australians’ ethnocentricity one bit. The war went on for a long time, and subsequent, smaller conflicts arose as well. Generally, the effects were very negative.

Because of the Australians’ ethnocentricity and wanting to rule over Australia exactly the same way as they ruled Britain, many conflicts arose and the effects were mainly negative. Ethnocentricity does cause conflict in many ways.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

The Rabbits - Reflection Paragraph

In class we are reading the allegorical picture book "The Rabbits". The story tells how the English colonized Australia, and talks about how they interacted and treated eachother.

When colonization happens, the impact on the colonized is mostly negative in many aspects. In this case, the English colonized the aborigines from Australia. The English brought with them animals, food, and new ideas. There were some positive aspects of their colonization; the Australians liked some of the food and animals. But there were many negative events as well. Some of the food made the people sick.War broke out. These are but some examples of the negative impacts of colonization on the colonized. I think, in general, colonization has far more positive aspects for the colonizers; they get new land and space to populate, they can discover and plunder more, and they can find new materials or resources in the colonized land. But if the colonizers take a lot of the natural resources and exploit the land. it's not very good for the environment. If the colonizers mine all the ores and minerals available, the condition of the rock will decrease. There is also the whole aspect of bringing their own animals and food to the colonized land. The colonized people's bodies aren't used to consuming the kind of foods the colonizers eat. If the colonizers bring food, it might, as it did in The Rabbits, cause sickness or plague to spread in the colonized land. This would be terrible. The colonizers use up the resources and land also for industrialisation; this can be both good and bad. It can be good if the colonizers choose to let the locals learn and profit from the industry. For example, if you were to colonize a country and find lots of wheat there, you might be able to set up a bread-making or processing plant. This could benefit both the colonizers and the colonized. Also, in the story some of the animals scare the colonized; they have never seen those different animals before. Actions like this would scare or maybe even intimidate the colonized. This could lead to war. War would be terrible and completely unfair. If the colonizers can colonize, that means they probably have a significant advantage over the natives. Like in the colonization of the Australian aborigines, the British had guns and cannons, as opposed to the Australians, who simply had primitive spears and shields.
I think the deeper meaning behind The Rabbits is that colonization is both positive and negative. It is pretty positive for the colonizers; they gain knowledge, land and resources. It is negative for the colonized; their lifestyle and environment is being changed and deformed around them. The main theme that, in my opinion, is associated with colonization is change. It is a huge change for the colonized and their way of living.
Overall, "The Rabbits" is a very interesting allegorical picture book about the colonization of Australia.