Jump to content

Talk:British colonisation of South Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename

[edit]

How about we rename this article European settlement of South Australia?--cj | talk 00:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one objects to this title, I shall move the article in a week's time.--cj | talk 08:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the article, and am fine with a name change. BTW, this article is far from done and I intend to work on it.SauliH 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What was this article renamed from. Can you point me to the rename diff if possible. Thanks Donama (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness of an old conversation, the rename edit is this one. --Scott Davis Talk 04:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement, invasion, or colonisation?

[edit]

A question: "...were recognised as inhabitable prior to this time..." - by whom were they recognised as such? One assumes that the aboriginal inhabitants of the area had recognised it as habitable since they were already there =) but this statement probably needs clarification - my point is not to flame the article but to show that discussions of European "settlement" in Australia are political minefields which can easily offend indigenous people with the (often unintended) implication that native title did not exist at the time of European colonisation. In order to minimise this risk it is necessary to be very careful in wording such articles so that it is clear that there are at least two perspectives on the "settlement" of Australia by European people: i.e. that of the "settlers" and the rather less well-represented one of the original inhabitants. Even the word "settlement" has the potential to offend indigenous people by implying either that there was nobody there beforehand (c.f. Terra Nullius) or that the process was a peaceful one (far from the truth). The word "invasion" is probably more accurate, but also liable to give offense to those of European descent. "Colonisation" would be preferable IMHO... Aikidesigns (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much knowledge of all this so not very good at understanding the politics of it all. To me, this article is trying to be about the early "recorded history" part of South Australia, rather than trying to take a point of view on whether it was a valid "settlement" or "invasion", etc. Can you try editing out the bits that don't concern what I've identified as the topic perhaps. Donama (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European settlement of South Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naming and other issues

[edit]

I find title and intention of this page a little unclear. I see that it used to be called "History of South Australia from 1831 to 1842", which is perhaps a little long and/or clumsy, but at least it had the benefit of specificity. The current title sounds as if it should include all of the settlers up to the present day, or at least until most of the towns and regions were settled - including various waves of settlers from other places (not being overly familiar with the history, I can only think of Germans and Cornish) - which would make the whole thing rather too cumbersome and likely to become patchy and mostly useless. What about "British colonisation of South Australia", as per British colonisation of Tasmania? Perhaps more of a timeline-type article signposting all of the disparate articles relating to this period in SA's history and expanding a bit on History of South Australia#British preparation for establishing a colony, and/or taking it up to 1856, when (I have just learnt in the History of SA article) it became a "self-governing colony" (was this a change back after South Australia Act 1842 made it a Crown Colony, or the first time ever actually self-governing??). Any and all ideas welcome... I would just like to see the page better defined and better used. (Not that I have time to get deeply into it just now!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Somewhat related to this, is a lot of overlap between History of Adelaide and the History of SA article sections covering the same period. Not entirely surprising, considering most of the settlement was in Adelaide, I suppose - but it would be good to get these rationalised and kept mostly in one article too... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 November 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move as proposed. After the extended discussion, there is unanimous support for the use of "colonisation" over "settlement". There is broad consensus that reliable sources indicate that much of the colonising was British, although SmokeyJoe and The Drover's Wife raise interesting points about the German role. Should anybody desire further discussion on removing "British" from the title on that basis, there is no prejudice against speedily bringing it back to requested moves. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


European settlement of South Australia → British colonisation of South Australia – I'm still working on this, but see comments above. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak Oppose, due to lack of evidence presented. These options are politically loaded, and WP:TITLECHANGES applies. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is the correct title. Untrammeled (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - SmokeyJoe, see the comments in the section above. This is a low-traffic article, but my issue is that the current heading is too vague and doesn't describe what the article is actually about. It is about the lead-up to and the steps taken by the British government to create a new colony, and the very early days of that colony (until the form of government was changed only a few years after establishment). I suggested that as a new title because is quite specific: colonisation is what happened (it's not suggesting it was good or bad). I'm very open to other suggestions, but I think the current title is misleading, at least in how I read and understand it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Settlement" is clearly biased language that has been repeatedly and widely challenged in reliable sources; "colonisation" is neutral and indisputable. I'm less certain about the "European"; although it was obviously a British colony SA had a large and significant German colonist community and I'm wondering if it's significant enough to justify retaining that use over "British" - I'm not bothered either way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laterthanyouthink, hi The Drover's Wife. I think I am being justifiably lazy. The section above fails to make the point for me, and yes, settlement/colonisation is biased, contentious, challenged, but I think proponents of the move should provide the evidence, links to a couple of sources that speak to the term “settlement” vs “colony”. I don’t know that “colony” is neutral, and prefer to respect sources, or look to CONSISTENCY with similar articles. I don’t think the Germans in SA were enough to displace SA as obviously British. I know it as more “non-convict” & “non-Irish”, thus it was more suitable for non English free settlers than the other colonies where Irish convicts and ex convicts were everywhere. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Settlement" is a statement of opinion, because it takes a clear ideological stance on how white people came to be there (to summarise it right down, I can't "settle" your property). It is not an entirely unpopular statement of opinion, but so is "Trump is a good president", and we don't say that in Wikipedia voice either. "Colonisation" is a neutral term: it literally describes the founding of the colony (their term, not mine) of South Australia, whatever ones opinion on the process. The legislation providing for the establishment of that colony literally says in its title that the legislation is "...to provide for the Colonisation of [South Australia]". [1] The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support “British” over “European”, but am wondering if either is needed? Colonisation of South Australia? South Australia, 1831 to 1842? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for the input, SmokeyJoe and The Drover's Wife. The main reason I included the "British" was that it's specifically about the early days of colonisation by the British government. I have just read that the first Germans arrived in 1838, so could make mention of them if the "British" is dropped. But they didn't have anything to do with the actual (political, administrative, etc.) colonisation process - they just settled (farmers, tradesmen, miners, labourers, pastors, etc., according to what I've just read on a brief but generally reliable source) and didn't seem to play any role in governing, at least until 1857. Happy to go with consensus, but I think it is more about the colonisation process than settlement. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think British colonisation makes sense and is the clearest way of describing the article content - you make an excellent point about the German aspect, and I think mentioning who was doing the colonising is fairly important for context. Not in favour of trying to turn it into a generalised history article because it's specifically about the process of establishing a British colony in South Australia and it doesn't have the broader context that would be required to change its subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "British" is right (not German etc). The German settlers[sic]colonists knew they were coming to a British colony, and had to be naturalised as British subjects before they could buy (rather than rent) land. British Province of South Australia already redirects to this article. Colony of South Australia redirects to History of South Australia but should probably be changed too. --Scott Davis Talk 22:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments please

[edit]

The Drover's Wife, SmokeyJoe and ScottDavis, when you have time, would you please have a read of the article since I have tinkered with it some more, and either do whatever edits you like or let me know what you think is missing or doesn't read well? Do you think it's ready for a C, at least? (I have not intended it to be a comprehensive article about every detail of the history, but as an easy-to-read guide to the sequence of events, with signposting to other articles, some of those created or improved by me.) Scott, I have changed that redirect and just about to check all other redirects to this page and History of South Australia. As you will see, I have also added a bit about the Germans. Cheers. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it and made a few minor edits. I think it needs some larger rephrasing around the European explorers - they were leaders of teams/parties/crews, not Flinders, Baudin and Sturt each on their own. The "discovered" scare quotes also need to be rephrased.
Unanswered questions as a reader include what happened to the ships and sailors of the first fleet - are they included in the passenger count and became SA's first sailors/merchant fleet, or did they leave and either return to the UK or other voyages? Duke of York (1817 ship) apparently was wrecked in what is now Queensland in Aug 1837, but it doesn't indicate where she was based. I'd be interested in a reference or relative numbers for "The settlers were mostly British" in the 1836–1842 section, given how small the British passenger counts were on the first fleet, compared to hundreds on the German settler ships two years later. --Scott Davis Talk 10:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback and for your fixes, ScottDavis. At this point I have no idea about the answers to your questions, but when I get back to this I will address them and see if I can find any documentation. Most of the sources only talk about the British in those early years. I can't recall where I got the "mostly British" bit from, and it's difficult to find exact numbers of German settlers (apparently quite a few moved on to other states too), but the first lot of Old Lutherans only arrived in November 1838. I don't suppose that anyone has been able to ascertain exact numbers, but TheShipsList lists only 6 ships from Germany up to 1841. It looks as if it has some useful leads to other info. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I'll have to come back to this later sometime as I have to head out now, but while I have the sources open I'll just park a few here for later ref. SAH - Flinder Ranges Research; 1841 census - PDF list (at a quick glance, overwhelming number look like British names); Bound for SA (passenger lists); Early German settlements. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those links. I will look further too. I agree that the names in the census index are overwhelmingly British, but I wonder how complete it is. I could not find, for example, August Kavel who should have been in the German group by then, and I'm not sure if Dirk Meinerts Hahn is or should be there either (there are several other Hahns). I think there may be some British people missing too. I had never really thought about the relative sizes of various parts of the population until I saw how small the passenger groups on those first fleet ships were. --Scott Davis Talk 23:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposed

[edit]

(The comment below was made by NickP86 on Talk:Colonial Land and Emigration Commission which is a redirect) copied here by me after retargeting the redirect and yesterday creating a section in the South Australia Act 1842 article. I belatedly thought that the content about the demise of the Commissioners and the creation of the new body is better placed in this article, which is a narrative linking the two Acts as well, so I've moved it from South Australia Act 1842 and added a bit more, and retargeted the redirect to this section. I'm sure there's plenty more to be found. Sorry about the mess. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC) )[reply]

This page should become a separate article. The Colonial Land and Emigration Commission was established in 1841. In 1855 it was renamed the Emigration Commission and in 1878 it was abolished.

The NSW Archives agency description may be suitable to adapt into an article, since it appears to be licensed under a CC BY 4.0 license [2].

See: [3] [4] [5] (NickP86 talk)

Support. Google tells me that there's quite a lot to be dug up on this body and the early history of emigration to other states, so it needs a separate article. It is mentioned in a few other articles, but none seem to relate to a general history of emigration to Australia. A few more which might be worth looking at, for whoever creates the article: The Great Emigration of 1841: Recruitment for New South Wales in British Emigration Fields; a thesis entitled "Irish female immigration during the great famine to South Australia" (a PDF - need to google); and Colonization Commissioners (SA State Records). Also finding more related to T.F. Elliot will return more info about the earlier office of "Agent-General for Emigration". I have too much else on my list to consider tackling this at the moment, but I hope someone else will... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original inhabitants

[edit]

Hello, I noticed that the original inhabitants of the region in question appear only after half of the article. Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention them already in the lead, and what the colonisation meant for them? Ziko (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_colonisation_of_South_Australia&oldid=1237845421"