Friday, December 08, 2006

Belshaw Takes a Break



Photo: South West Rocks, New England

Tomorrow I leave for a few days in South West Rocks, one of the most beautiful places in New England.

While there is an internet cafe in South West Rocks and I will be checking my blogs and responding to any comments, I do not expect at this point to make any posts.

I want a rest to rethink and re-charge.

Pauline Hanson and the Australian Way

I have noticed the comments about Pauline Hanson in the press. Now here I agree with Neil's view: Best not to give her the oxygen, and Bob Brown’s predictable and well-intentioned namecalling is poor strategy, in my view. As Neil says, best to ignore her.

I am saying this up front because I want to express a counter view about her past role, looking back at what happened and subsequent changes in Australia from a different perspective.

One Nation's success came as a suprise to politicians, journalists and city intellectuals. It should not have.

Cast your mind back to the period leading up to the election of March 1996. Australia had been through a period of very significant social and economic change, some elements of which I have been tracing in this blog.

In economic terms, the economic troubles of the seventies had been blurred by prosperity and then boom during the eighties. This prosperity concealed to some degree the impact of economic restructuring that was already underway, that was already creating a pattern of economic winners and losers. Then came the recession that we had to have, a recession that accelerated and exposed the restructuring process, increasing the the number who were worse off and who feared for their future.

Economic change combined with social and cultural change. Asian migration became more visible, creating fears about the transformation in society. Then Paul Keating started pushing the idea of the republic. Coming on top of other changes, this move was quite divisive, becoming another symbol to some of a change process out of control.

Because of the Party's Irish Catholic past, I do not think that either Mr Keating or those in the ALP supporting the change fully understood the emotional impact of the republic proposal, an impact that was important in part because it was symbolic, another sign of loss of position among a group that had been part of the dominant Australian main stream only thirty years before.

By 1996 there was a large group in society fearful of the future, concerned about the pace of change. Their concerns were exacerbated, their numbers concealed, by the intellectual lockdown imposed by the dominant intellectual elites. There were a range of views that were simply excluded from public discussion.

I remember a dinner party in Armidale in 1993 with a group of people connected with the University. I expressed the concern that the pace of change had become too fast, that we needed to look at slowing it, that Asian migration was becoming an issue. I knew this because of the range of people I talked to across the country.

This was meant to be a conversation, an issue to be explored. I was not allowed to continue. Even to suggest that the question of ethnic mix had become an issue in some people's minds and needed to be discussed was construed as racist. The reason why the word multiculturalism became such an issue among some is that it was itself a symbol of intellectual lockdown imposed by what were being called the thought police aka the chattering classes.

Pauline Hanson and One Nation were created as political forces by the dominant intellectual elites.

Their and especially the press reaction to one of her comments led to the withdrawal of her Liberal Party pre-selection for Oxley and turned her into a political marty. Her decision to contest the seat as an independent might have passed into history had the media not focused on her so strongly. By doing so, they created the conditions required for her to attract support from part of the disaffected group.

The extent of the upswell in support took the metro media by surprise simply because they had become so isolated from some streams of Australian opinion. This upswell then provided further stories, feeding the process.

The way the media reported Ms Hanson and One Nation did us enormous short term damage overseas. But at local level the growth of the media boosted Ms Hanson and One Nation had a major but unrecognised, perhaps still unrecognised, national plus. It lanced a boil that, had it continued, might have poisoned the nation.

This came about in two ways. First, previously suppressed views and concerns were now being discussed. Secondly, the main stream parties now took up some of those concerns in order to isolate One Nation. This was done not so much in policy terms, but in rhetoric and symbols.

Much of the discussion of the language and approaches by those critical of Mr Howard focus on the importation of overseas ideas and especially those imported from the US. There is some truth in this, but it also misses a key point.

In many ways, Mr Howard is first and foremost a populist, electoral politician. He likes being with people and has the capacity to capture and articulate what many people feel. If you look at his comments and approaches, at his language, he is actually articulating what the previously suppressed group felt, presenting an Australian view that reflects their concerns, in so doing bringing them back into the political mainstream.

The loss of republic referendum has also helped here by removing a previously divisive symbol from discussion. Australia may or may not become a republic in due course, but it's no longer something that people have to worry about in the short term. It is no coincidence that the no vote was most concentrated in those geographic areas (country, outer suburbs) containing the highest proportion of those threatened, alienated by the previous change process.

The previously dominant intellectual elites have struggled to come to grips with all this, suffering from the same sense of isolation, of diminished relevance that they had previously inflicted on others.

Change is continuous. Here I have been fascinated by the way in which the dialectic between the two schools - previously dominant, then suppressed, now dominant again to some degree vs the dominant now suppressed - combined with policy and political change is leading to a new amalgam.

Take the word multicultural as an example.

When this first emerged, it simply meant a society with multiple cultures that could exist and be recognised within the broader national body. This was in fact Australia's formal position in 1949 in the early days of the post war mass migration program when the Government emphasised the fact that migrants did not have to give up their culture or religious practices.

The word then became a sometimes hated symbol - the substitution of the concept of multiple cultures in place of an Australian national culture. This led to its partial suppression, discredited, after 1996.

The word is now coming back into acceptable usage, its meaning morphed back into its initial meaning before it acquired all the semantic overtones. To put this in Howardian terms, Australia is a tolerant society that recognises and accepts different ways within a framework set by our national laws and culture.

I linked the term Australian Way with Pauline Hanson because all this goes to the heart of one of my recurring arguments, the fact (as I see it) that there is a distinctive Australian Way, that we need to focus on charting our own path.

Pauline Hanson was a distinctly Australian creation. The response to her, immediate and longer term, was also distinctly Australian. Attempts to interpret her and subsequent responses usuing overseas models will at best be grossly misleading. One Nation, for example, was never an extreme right wing party on European lines even though some of those following One Nation may have had Neo-Nazi links.

I do not pretend to know Australia now as well as I did in 1996.

Since we moved to Sydney's Eastern Suburbs my contact base (occupational and geographic) has narrowed, while Australia has become more diverse. Still, my feeling remains that Pauline Hanson this time round will be important if and only if she receives the same amount of attention she did in 1966. Even then, I doubt that she will have the same impact.






Thursday, December 07, 2006

Australia's Population - June 2006

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has just released its Australian population estimates as at June 2006. Key points:
  • The estimated resident population of Australia was 20,605,500 persons, an increase of 265,700 persons (up 1.3%) since 30 June 2005.
  • Migration contributed 134,600 persons (51 per cent) of this (previous year 123,800), natural growth 131,200 (previous year 124,500).
  • States or territories recording the fastest growth in percentage terms were Western Australia (2.0%), followed by Queensland (1.9%) and the Northern Territory (1.6%). Slowest growers were the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales (0.9%), South Australia (0.8%) and Tasmania (0.7%). Victoria recorded growth of 1.4%, the highest for many years.
  • In absolute terms, Queensland recorded the greatest growth (76,400) followed by Victoria (68,500) and then NSW (58,800). WA came next on 39,900.
  • As has been the case for a number of years, NSW continued to lose people (-24,000), if at a slightly slower rate. This loss was offset by overseas migration. This pattern of population loss and gain is most pronounced in Sydney, explaining the slowly growing divergence between that city's ethic mix and that holding elsewhere in most of the country.

The ABS Release also contained some interesting data from the US Bureau of Census International Data Base.

  • The world's population is projected to grow from 6 528.1 million today to 9 404.3 million in 2050.
  • Ranked by population, Australia dropped from 52nd place in 2005 to 54th in 2006 (population 20.6 million) and is projected to fall to 67th place (population 28 million) by 2050.
  • India is projected to grow from 1 111.7 million to 1 807.9 million, overtaking China (now
    1 314.0 million, 2050 projection 1 424.2 million) as the world's most populous nation.
  • The US will stay at number 3 place, rising from 298.4 million to 420.1 million.
  • Japan's population is projected to fall from 127.5 to 99.9 million.
  • Countries in our region expected to record significant population increases are Indonesia (up from 231.8 million today to 313 million in 2050), Malaysia ( up from 24.4 to 43.1 million) and Papua New Guinea (up from 5.7 to 10.7 million).

While I have not done a full analysis of the numbers, these projections add demographic weight to the analysis I put forward about Australia's future in GDP - Australia in its Region. They also set part of the context for the current debate on climate change.

The New Zealand Belshaws - a dispersed Pacific Family




Photo: Horace Belshaw 1898-1962, teacher, economist, university professor, international civil servant

In my last post in the Pacific Perspective series, Australia in the Pacific, I took some examples from 19th century Pacific history to sketch the development of relationships between Australia and the Pacific, to explain why the Pacific was so important to Australia.

This Pacific focus was reflected in the life of particular families.

In my biographical post on Professor Murray, I looked in part at the Murray family as an example of a family with Pacific and Imperial linkages, a symbol of a now distant past.

The New Zealand Belshaws are another example of a Pacific family, although in our case the directions are a little different.

Never a large family, the New Zealand Belshaws spread out to Canada, the US and Australia as academics and international civil servants with a focus on anthropology, economics and community development, replicating patterns across countries and several generations. At one point this small family had four members at professorial level in four countries.

No one can quite explain how James Belshaw, a Wigan coal miner, and his wife, Mary Pilkington who worked in the textile mills before their marriage, managed to breed a family of international academics. Certainly the Methodist tradition and a thirst for education and self improvement helped, as did the particular nature of New Zealand itself at the time they migrated there, for in the first half of the 20th century that small country generated a remarkable number of internationally prominent academics.

Australians and New Zealanders see themselves as similar, and indeed there are strong similarities. But as a social observer with feet in both countries, I am as interested in the differences between them. These are substantial and, I think, increasing.

Tracing these differences is a matter for a different series of posts. For the present, my focus is on the Belshaws because our family illustrates some of the themes that I have been exploring in this series and especially the past importance of the Pacific.

Previous posts in the Pacific Series

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

HSC English and Post Modernism - a further note

In a comment on my last post on this topic, I referred to Neil Whitfield's main blog. Neil posted a comment: Thanks, Jim. Have you noted the new blog Neil Whitfield's English and ESL? Some of your readers may find it interesting.

While the blog that Neil refers to has a special focus on ESL (English as a Second Language), it contains a range of generally useful material. For that reason, I am responding as a post rather than a comment. I recommend the blog to you.

All this raises a broader issue in my mind. Has blogging reached the stage now that we can use it as a platform for discussing topics of special interest to individual groups?

I know that this already happens to a degree, nor am I saying anything especially profound. But just as I have begun to tailor the responses on this blog to the interests revealed by the search engine stats, maybe it is time to look at building up certain blogs as key reference and discussion points.

I know that I am interested in the NSW HSC and English. I also know that I have gained from other parents who have looked at specific issues and then given me advice. I wonder how we can broaden this?

HSC English and Post Modernism - a note

While checking through search hits on this blog, I noted a couple of its on HSC English and post modernism. While I only have a few glancing references on this site to the topic, it is of interest to me because Clare, youngest, is doing four unit English for the HSC.

For those who are looking in this area, I think that Ninglun's (Neil Whitfield's) blog is probably the best source of information I know on the NSW HSC English course in general. Neil is a very experienced HSC English teacher. I am sure that if you post a question as a comment on one of his stories, you will get a response.

Generation Next - a note

Two things have happened in the last week relevant to the discussion on generational change.

The first was the way in which baby boomers, generation x and generation y have established a clear lead in the initial list of search engine terms bringing new people to this blog. Further, those searches came from at least six countries on four contents. Clearly there is a lot of interest out there.

The second was the emergence into my consciousness for the first time of the phrase Generation Next. I had wondered what term we were going to use after the ill-chosen x and y, ill chosen because of the way x ended up as a starting point. It appears that it may be the equally ill-chosen Next. What then? Next Next?

As normal, the first thing that I did upon hearing the term was to ask my daughters (16,18). Both see themselves as generation y. Neither had heard the term Generation Next.

I then did the usual Google search, first on Australian pages then world wide.

I found very few references. The University of Queensland I noted used the term, Universities are often quick to pick up on the latest popular jargon, but applied it to what I would have called generation y. Swimming Australia also used the term, in inverted commas, to describe the up and coming swimmers. Wine Australia also used the term to describe the next generation of winemakers.

I then looked at the US, always the home of new jargon.

Here I noted that PBS has a whole section of its web site entitled Generation Next. Speak Up. Be Heard. PBS clearly believes that this is a new - 16-25 - generational group:

Thanks to factors such as technology and increased globalization, Generation Next has become a growing class of global citizens -- voracious learners, cultural sponges and unassuming ambassadors -- who have chosen to take international detours for study, work and fun.

USA Today also appears to use the term Generation Next to describe the same demographic. The BBC, too, uses the phrase Generation Next in describing the world though the eyes of the next generation. I stopped here because of time considerations.

Now there is a very clear semantic distinction in talking about Generation Next as compared to the next generation. So we are clearly dealing with something that is well on the way to acquiring a popular label. But it all leaves me quite confused.

What is the relationship between generation y and the Next Generation? Is the term Next Generation simply being used to describe generation y? Or are we dealing with some differentiation from generation y.

If the last, we are shortly going to have some very confused Australian young people, let alone marketers, journalists, HR people and popular commentators. Will the new Australian MYI magazine that eldest reads need to retitle itself Generation Next?

Is there anyone out there who can help me understand?

Previous Posts

Previous posts on baby boomers etc:

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Demographic Change - a note on Germany

I apologise to those who may have got several feeds on the Pacific story. Unfortunately there was some corruption with the story including loss of a photo that I was trying to fix.

A little while ago I noticed a story on the Demography matters blog linking Germany's poor economic growth to its demographic structure and especially its aging population. The same story also noted that Germany was suffering net migration among its young and especially its professionals.

I was puzzled by the second. Conventional wisdom states that aging population will widen opportunities for the young. Why, then, are they leaving?

A German reporter explained it to me this way.

Slow economic growth means that the overall pool of opportunities is not rising. Germany is also facing major competitive problems forcing economic restructuring.

Because older workers are well entrenched their existing conditions tend to be preserved, with restructuring and associated changes in working conditions focused on new entrants. This means that the young do not get the same conditions as their elders upon entry, while their career advancement is blocked off. So they are leaving.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Project Management, Creation and Use of Case Studies

Putting aside my personal hat for my professional one just for a moment, I wanted to mention two interesting series of posts on other blogs that I am involved with.

Many of us use case studies in our work. They are also used increasingly in a range of areas like regional and community development to explain why development does, does not happen. In this context, I have just put up three posts on the Managing the Professional Services Firm blog on the creation and use of case studies. The posts are:

Project management is another area of common interest across management and the professions. Here we are putting up a series of posts on project management techniques on the Ndarala Group blog. So far we have put up two posts:

In both cases we are drawing from internal Ndarala Guides prepared for the use of members and clients. We have decided that we should make this material more broadly available.

Pacific Perspective - Australia in the Pacific




Photo: 4 April 1883, Queensland unilaterally annexes the southern coast of New Guinea in the name of the British Empire

In my last post, I pointed to the way the Pacific had vanished from Australian consciousness. This post discusses the evolution of Australia's involvement in the Pacific.

The 19th century saw a rapid expansion of colonial influence throughout the Pacific as the European empires, the US and later Japan extended their sway.

From an Australian perspective, the Pacific was a source of wealth. The Australian colonies were also concerned about Defence issues and the protection of the their and British interests in the Pacific in the face of expansion of other powers.

I do not want to write a history of the Pacific, but will use three examples to illustrate the point.

New Zealand

New Zealand was originally settled by waves of Polynesians some time between 1000 and 1300 CE, although some evidence suggests earlier settlement. The descendants of these settlers created a distinct culture and became known as the Māori. Some of the Māori (particularly in the North Island), called their new homeland "Aotearoa" ("land of the long white cloud").

There are no known links between New Zealand and Australia prior to European settlement, but the two places were linked from the start of settlement.

At the time of the foundation of NSW, Governor Phillip's commission stated that the new colony included "all the islands adjacent in the Pacific Ocean" and running westward on the continent to the 135th meridian. This technically included the islands of New Zealand.

From the 1790s, the waters around New Zealand were visited by British, French, and American whaling ships, while seal hunters exploited the fur seal colonies around the coastline. Largely unregulated immigration of British settlers began, while missionaries arrived to spread the Christian message.

In 1832, following growing tensions between local Māori and the increasing settler population, James Busby was appointed Official Resident in New Zealand, a move supported by the missionary population who sought to bring British institutions to complement their Christian teachings.

Unlike the Australian Aborigines, the Māori were organised and had a strong military tradition. Busby encouraged local Māori chiefs to assert their sovereignty. This included approval for the first New Zealand flag (photo) followed by the signing of a "Declaration of Independence" in 1835. This Declaration was acknowledged by King William IV but did not conclude the issue of governance.

In 1839 new Letters Patent were proclaimed by NSW Governor Gipps giving New Zealand a Lt Governor. This was followed early in 1840 by the negotiation of the Treaty of Waitangi signed on 6 February 1840 between Britain and Māori chiefs and then, in 1841, by the creation of New Zealand as a separate crown colony with similar powers to NSW. The formal linkage between New Zealand and the Australian colonies may have ended. but close contact continued.

Australian participation in the Sudan War (1885) is sometimes thought of as the first overseas service by troops from Australia. In fact, Australian participation in what were called here the Maori Wars, in New Zealand the Land Wars, was our first large overseas military engagement.

The Maori or Land Wars refers to a series of conflicts that took place in New Zealand between 1845 and 1872 between Maori and New Zealand/Imperial forces.

During the first three wars (1845-1847) the Māori fought the British (including British regular troops rushed from the Australian colonies) to a standstill. Peaceful relations then followed until 1860 when fighting broke out again, including the biggest war, the Waikato.

Victoria sent a corvette (its entire navy at the time) to support the Imperial forces, NSW gunships, while 2,500 Australian volunteers served in the Army. This would be the largest Australian military involvement until the Boer War (1899-1902) when a total of 16,175 men left Australia to fight in South Africa.

Fiji

Fijian history during the the first three quarters of the 19th century can best be described as complex, displaying many features found elsewhere in the Pacific including a strong Australian commercial influence.

Voyagers from the east first settled Fiji at least 2,500 years ago. Some of their descendants later moved on to settle the Polynesian islands to the west.

The first Europeans to settle among the Fijians were shipwrecked sailors and runaway convicts from Australian penal colonies. The discovery first of sandlewood in 1804 then of beche-der-mer led to an increase in the number and frequency of Western trading ships visiting Fiji. In the early 1820s, Levuka was established as the first European-style town in Fiji, on the island of Ovalau.

The intervention of European traders and missionaries, of whom the first arrived from Tahiti in 1830 followed by Wesleyan Methodists from Tonga in 1835 , led to increasingly serious wars among the native Fijian confederacies. As happened in New Zealand, the supply of guns changed local power equations.

Supplied with weapons by a Swedish mercenary, the Chief of Bau Island succeeded in subduing much of western Fiji. His successor, Seru Epenisa Cakobau, fought to consolidate Bauan domination and from 1853 started calling himself the Tui Viti, or King of Fiji. He faced opposition, however, from local chiefs who saw him at best as first among equals, and also from the Tongan Prince Enele Ma'afu, who had established himself on the Island of Lakeba in the Lau archipelago in 1848.

Cakobau's position was also undermined by trouble with the United States which demanded substantial reparations for damage done to the property of its consul, demands enforced by gunship. When Britain declined his offer to cede control of Fiji to them in return for payment of his debts and retention of his title, Cakobau turned to the Australian based Polynesia Company.

The Company agreed to pay his debts in return for 5,000 km² of land. In 1868 Australian settlers landed on 575 km² of land near the Fijian village of Suva. They would be followed by several thousand further planters over the next ten years.

Tensions over land combined with a collapse in cotton prices and the loss in 1870 of the crop through hurricane created a crisis. In 1871, the honorary British consul forced the creation of a constitutional monarchy, in so doing creating the first Fijian national state. This proved no more successful than previous arrangements, quickly collapsing under its debts. The British finally accepted another offer by the King to cede control of the Islands, taking control in 1874.

British rule brought peace and facilitated economic development centred especially on sugar. The admission of 60,000 indentured Indian labourers to work on the sugar plantations would create later problems. At the same time, the British also stopped the expropriation of Fijian land, protecting the position of the indigenous Fijians.

Australia maintained its economic dominance of the Islands, from sugar through mining to commerce.

Annexation of Papua


The third example (and here) is a much shorter one.

In the 1870s the Australian colonies were concerned about the expansion of German power in the Pacific. (Photo German New Guinea Company flag). They asked the central Government to annex New Guinea, but also refused to pay any of the costs. In 1876, London declined.

In 1883, Queensland decided to act pre-emptively in what must have been one of the first independent foreign policy actions by one of the Australian colonies.

The Queensland Premier, Sir Thomas McIlwraith the Premier of Queensland ordered Henry Chester (1832-1914), the Police Magistrate on Thursday Island to proceed to Port Moresby and formally annex New Guinea and adjacent islands in the name of the British Empire. Chester made the proclamation on 4 April 1883.

The British government repudiated the action. However, after the Australian colonies agreed to provide financial support, the British Government made the territory a British protectorate the following year. Agreement was also reached between the Netherlands, Germany and Britain defining a key dividing boundary. Four years later, in 1888, Britain formally annexed the territory along with some adjacent islands.

Upon Federation, formal responsibility for British New Guinea, now called Papua, moved to the new Australian Government (1906). Control over German New Guinea was added at the end of the First World War under a League of Nations mandate.

Conclusion

These three examples all show different aspects of the evolution of Australia's involvement with the Pacific during the 19th century.

As I indicated earlier in this series, the Pacific was still deeply embedded in the Australian consciousness during the fifties.

We had been involved in two major wars defending our Pacific boundaries. A separate Department of State, the Department of External Territories, managed our external territories. Australian commercial interests largely dominated economic life in the Pacific. Pacific Islands including New Zealand took most of our small quantity of manufactured exports. Most Australians knew someone or had relatives living and working somewhere in the Pacific.

This changed during the seventies and eighties.

Papua New Guinea gained its independence in 1975, although it remained the largest recipient of Australian aid. As Australia grew in size and pursued other interests, the Pacific shrank in relative importance. Our commercial and trading interests also shrank, although the Pacific including New Zealand remained important in trade terms. By the 1980s Pacific leaders were complaining about the lack of official interest in the Pacific.

Would we have avoided or at least minimised recent troubles had we retained a stronger Pacific focus? Perhaps not given the nature of the problems. But at the very least, the problems would have come as less of a surprise. Certainly we can no longer ignore the Pacific.

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Pacific Perspective - Setting the Scene

In my post GDP - Australia in its Region I spoke of Australia and New Zealand's role in the Pacific. There I wrote in part:

Australia is a super power in its immediate region, and sometimes behaves with the arrogance of one. Ten years ago few of us would have foreseen the increasing need to project force in the way we have had to in the Pacific ... Our relations with our Pacific neighbours are likely to become more, not less, complicated.

Since then I have watched with sadness the riots in Tonga requiring New Zealand and Australian involvement.

This was followed by the coup threats in Fiji requiring Australia to send a naval force to stand by ready to evacuate foreigners.

A Blackhawk helicopter crashed while landing on HMAS Kanimbla, one of the Fiji force, killing the pilot with one soldier missing, presumed dead. Over the last decade, Australia has in fact lost many more service personnel in helicopter accidents than from any other cause, including the crash in April 2005 on Nias Island, Indonesia, of a navy Sea King helicopter on Tsunami relief, killing nine.

Now as I write the clock is ticking down on the latest Fiji coup deadline.

Younger Australians have no idea, I think, that Australia used to see itself as a Pacific country, part of Oceania, that the Pacific was a place of romance and excitement.

While Australia lost sight of this during the 1970s and 1980s when our focus shifted towards Asia, New Zealand retained its Pacific focus. Now our lack of attention to Oceania has come back to bite us.

When I was growing up back in the 195os the past romance of the Pacific still lingered.

It was there in the older children's books, stories of adventure. It was there in our companies such as CSR with its Fiji interests, in the various plantation companies listed on the Australian stock exchanges, in the great trading companies like Burns Philp and W R Carpenter. It was there in the radio serials such as the ABC Argonauts series on the adventures of a young Australian patrol officer in Papua New Guinea.

Now much of this has gone. As always when I write these sorts of posts, I checked with my daughters. The canvass that I was talking about did not exist for them. There is nothing that I can see in their school course on the Pacific, nothing even on New Zealand. The Pacific has become a place of resorts, where cruise ships go.

In my next posts I will take some examples from Pacific History, then talk about my own family as a Pacific family.

Pacific Perspective - Introduction

In my apology post on the New Zealand Belshaws I mentioned that was going to re-run that story broken into several parts to make it easier to read.

The story was written in part to put Australia and New Zealand in a Pacific context. Since then, I have done some historical digging trying to understand patterns. I must say that it's a fascinating story. Sex, high adventure, gun running, intrigue, gun boat diplomacy, war, empire building. Painters and pirates, adventurers and administrators, writers and wrong-uns, lovers and luggers.

Painting this vast canvas in a few short posts is quite beyond me. So I will try to limit myself to setting the scene, using the story of my own family to help explain why the Pacific has been important to us, why we should not forget. Yes, there have been all the evils of colonialism, of greed, but there has also been romance and excitement. I think that we will all be the poorer if we forget this part of our past.

In writing, one real problem has been my inability to load any of the visual material. Blogger playing up yet again. I cannot afford more time, so will run with what I have, using photos, flags etc later.

Posts in the Pacific Perspective Series

3 December 2006, Pacific Perspective - Introduction
3 December 2006, Pacific Perspective - Setting the Scene
4 December 2006, Pacific Perspective - Australia in the Pacific
7 December 2006, The New Zealand Belshaws - a dispersed Pacific Family
7 August 2007, Pacific Perspective - Pasifika and New Zealand's Future