1
→
Colonies' contribution to English language
Why can we say that the colonies contributed to enrich the English language ?
1. English language, a way to unify the empire ? The British territory was quite big, and they needed to speak the same language in order to communicate between the countries and the main country (doc. 1). We can see that big countries like Canada, USA or Australia are in this Empire. Next to this, there are some countries where English is the official language but another one is the most spoken by the inhabitants. It helped also people of different nationalities or religions, such as Muslim and Hindu, which didn't want to speak the language from another religion, so English contributed to resolve this problem as they all learn English to talk between themselves.
2. New words for new products When they had new colonies, the British got new products, and they were forced to use the names of the products they bought, and this contributed to make the English language grow (doc. 2). Many goods from England were transmitted to colonies so they used the appropriated words, and it contributed to enrich the English language. After many years, the language was really improved both in England and colonies.
3. Some differences between two countries There are some differences between the English of two countries, like USA and England. There are more than 120 words that are radically different, such as autumn in British English and fall in American English. Some words have just 1 letter of difference, like colour in British English which becomes color. The pronunciation may also be different. During the past centuries, the language evolved in many points, some words disappeared, some were created and some were changed into the ones we know actually.
1
Official language
Official language but not the most spoken
Doc. 1 – Repartition of English language speaking around the world 1. What can we say about the English language's repartition around the world ? Is it still an important element in other countries (except Great Britain, of course) ? A - atoll, avatar B - bandana, bangle, bazaar, blighty, bungalow C - cashmere, catamaran, char, cheroot, cheetah, chintz, chit, chokey, chutney, cot, cummerbund, curry D - dinghy, doolally, dungarees G - guru, gymkhana H - hullabaloo J - jodhpur, jungle, juggernaut, jute K - khaki, kedgeree L - loot N - nirvana P - pariah, pashmina, polo, pukka, pundit, purdah, pyjamas S - sari, shampoo, shawl, swastika T - teak, thug, toddy, typhoon V - veranda Y – yoga
Sources: Hobson-Jobson, Oxford English Dictionary Doc. 2 – 50 words from India 1. Did you know all those words ? Are you surprised that some words you can use every day are from India ? Made by Antoine and Youri
2
Massieux Coryne Baud Marie Aude
How does the education system of colonies reflect the old introduction of the British education? If we look at the education system in the crown colonies (general noun that refers to all of the countries of the British empire except the Canada, Newfoundland, British Columbia, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and New Zealand) we can see that it is not very advanced yet. Malta is the only one of the colonies to have a university. The reasons for that are obvious : Those colonies have no resources, their development is just beginning and their populations are the most delay. Conditions were different in the autonomous colonies because they had a significant white settlement population and India had many centuries of civilization behind it, and enough resources to finance universities.
Doc 1. A photo of an African school
Questions: 1- What are the ÂŤcrown coloniesÂť? 2- What can we say about the education system of the crown colonies? 3- What shows on this photo that it was taken in a colony of the British Empire? (doc.1)
4- How can we see the poverty in this photo? (doc.1)
Chapter 5: the colonies of the British Empire 105
Case study: Comparison between French and British education system in the colonies
doc 1. The French Empire
doc 2. The British Empire
The British and the French had very different colonial policies with the latter being more equal, if you can say such a thing about a country taking over another nation. The British practiced association which promised the blacks independence eventually, and the French practiced assimilation which treated the blacks as equals (French Blacks). In means of colonial enforced education, the British were exclusive and the French were inclusive. The British only allowed African chiefs' children to obtain an education in their colonies. The French allowed all Africans in their colonies to obtain an education. These niceties are of course not expected to be taken with the best intentions. Each country ruled their colonies in a way that would ensure a peaceful living without danger of uprisings. In ways of government, the British let the African chiefs in their colonies continue to rule with Brits placed as figureheads of government. This was of course another way to try to appease the Africans who had been colonized. The French set up new governments and placed both Africans and Frenchmen in power since they claimed they were equal. I am sure that the positions Africans were placed in contained less power than the French positions, but on the surface this looks like an equal gesture. In the area of Africans' way of life, the British condemned everything about them. They tried to convert as many Africans to Christianity as possible, gave them English names and didn't allow the teaching of African history and culture in their schools. The French regarded the Africans as "equals" so did not do this specific kind of damage but I doubt they pushed for the teaching of African history and culture in their schools. As you can see, education, way of life, and government are just three of the areas that were greatly affected by the French and English colonial policies. The effect of colonization on the African continent was most definitely negative with few positive effects. In the end it didn't matter if the French said the Africans were "equal" with them or the British let the chiefs rule over their tribes, because it was all a farce, a nicety, a fake gesture to subdue the people they had taken over for natural resources, economic, and political gain. Jonna Windon 2007 Doc 3. A study comparing the French empire and the British empire
Questions: 1- Which differences can you see on maps ? Which empire is most vast ? (doc.1&2) 2- Which empire controlled most their colonies ? How ? (doc.3) 3- How the British imposed their way of life ?(doc.3) 4- Make a board comparing the differences between the way of managing colonies by British and that of French.(doc.3)
Chapter 5: the colonies of the British empire 106
1111
The British Empire, a force for good or devil?
> The foods in the British Empire At its peak, the British Empire was the largest formal empire that the world had ever known. As such, its power and influence stretched all over the globe ; shaping it in all manner of ways. The British empire had a massive impact on the history of the world. The British Empire forced her colonies to export theirs goods to Britain. After that, the British Empire could export the commodities to Europe. Many of the foods we enjoy today came originally from the countries of the British Empire such as tea, cocoa, chocolate, coffee, rice, curry.
Doc 1
This is a empire shop ; you can see a fruit merchant, and lot of fruit and vegetable, they come from of different countries.
Doc 2
Doc 3
The British Empire is a power based on the tea trade. In fact, it exports and imports of tea across the world.
1892 newspaper advertisement for the tea company Lipton
One of the major commodities exported from India to Britain was tea. The East India Company began commercial tea production in Assam in the 1820s. A growing industry, by 1900 there were around 4000 tea estates in north and south India and over 2000 in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). This popular drink generated a hugely profitable industry, and a tea culture emerged in Britain with its own quintessentially English customs and rituals. The advertisement below against from the tea manufacturer Lipton, promises a cuppa direct from ‘the tea garden to the teapot’. The romanticised image depicts a beautiful Indian plantation worker consuming a comforting beverage. Clearly it does not reflect the harsh realities of life as a tealeaf picker.
Vocabulary • Assam : It's a state situated on the tip of India and a black tea grown in northeastern India.
Questions Doc 1 Draw lines to match the places and the products: Ceylon Canada England Africa Tasmania
• East India Company : originally chartered as the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies • Commodity: an article of commerce, something of use, advantage, or profit
Flour
Bananas
Tea
Cheese
Apples
Jamaica Oranges
Doc 2 Make a complete description of the map. Doc1,2,3 towards the test: Create a paragraph on trade and food in the British Empire
DIOP Jean-Baptiste HOANG Thanh-Thao
A democratic system of Parliament based on the Westminster system model Many former colonies continue to use the democratic system of Parliament introduced by Britain. This is a force for good in the world. Since 1707, the United Kingdom run with a politic system of unitary parliamentary which based on the Westminster system. Why the Westminster system model which inspired the Britannic democratic system of Parliament is a force for good in the world ? 1.
Introduced the System of Parliament
United kingdom had a lot of influence on his colonies by many ways : in sciences, culture and also in politic. Nowadays, it stills a lot of former colonies which keep a parliament system, they are independent but continue to recognize the queen's authority. Since 6 February 1952, is Queen Elizabeth II who is the Commonwealth monarch. She lives predominantly in the United Kingdom and, while several powers are the sovereign's alone, most of the royal governmental and ceremonial duties are carried out by the Queen's representative, the governor general.
2.
The constitutional rôle based on Westminster model
The former and current colonies constitution is based on the Westminster parliamentary model, wherein the role of the Queen is both legal and practical, but not political. Important features of the Westminster system include the following, although not all of the following aspects have been preserved in every Westminster-derived system : – A sovereign (or head of state) who is the legal and constitutional holder of executive power. However his powers are limited by constitutional convention and he use it only with the head of government’s opinion. – A head of government known as the prime minister who is appointed by the sovereign. He must be supported by the majority of elected Members of Parliament. – A legislative power exercised by the Parliament. However, the projects adopted can be sanctioned by the sovereign. It composed of lower house and upper house. – An independent civil service which advises on, and implements, decisions of those ministers. – A lower house of parliament where the Westminster system enables a government to be defeated, or forced into a general election. DOC 1 : The Westminster system model
•
•
•
The stability of this system is from their institutions legislative, executive and judicial. The legislative power : The Parliament is bicameral, with a lower house and upper house. The lower house reflect the public opinion since the members are elected by direct universal suffrage. They control the government work as well as budgetary expenditure and devise laws. However, the upper house, often called a Senate, is designated by the Crown. Contrary in lower house, the upper house members aren't always elected directly. Her legislative power is limited because it take charge of civil and penal business. The executive power : It is divided between the Crown and the government. The sovereign influences but doesn't govern. The Crown choose the prime minister who will take executives decisions. The judicial power : The judges have got the last word on the interpretation of laws. They apply a valor judgment and take position personally, without influence and motivations of legislators. This power can be limited by lack of separation of different powers because it's the prime minister who elected judges. DOC 2 : The different institutions of Westminster system 3. A system efficient for the world
But the institutions of the Westminster system weren't defined in a Constitution. This system is built up through many major text. It run thanks to implicit conventions or thanks to the two-party system. It manages to establish in many countries too, what show of his efficacy and popularity. The conventions works an extremely important role in the system of Westminster. For example, it's the situation of the Prime Minister's job who isn't formally predicted in texts or of the monarch who has a representative role while constitution give it to him more powers. The two-party system characterizes the regime by a loyalty toward his political party. Contrary to the American Congress, it's rare to see a British member of Parliament of the majority to oppose the politic of the government or ask to him disturbing questions. It's the difference between both systems because it results from separation of the different powers. The Westminster system knew export and adapt his regime in different countries around the world (Canada, Australia, India, New-Zealand). This countries have adopted a parliamentary system where assemblies have supremacy or where the head of government possess the executive power. In Canada, Elizabeth II must validate every laws adopted by Assemblies. India is a particular case because she applies Westminster system by adding a federal system similar to that of USA with a line management. The real executive power belongs to Prime Minister by the President is the real head of state. India unfasten from the Westminster, because the President is elected by indirect vote without being the Queen's representative. Finally the Westminster system was able adapted for create stables regimes in different countries for example in India, where the federal system allowed of adapted to several cultures or religions. DOC 3 : Countries of Commonwealth 1. (doc 1) Explain what is the Westminster system model. 2. (doc 3) What is the Commonwealth ? What are the countries compose it ? 3. Compare the Westminster system with that of the USA. 4. (doc 2 and paragraph 3) Why the Westminster system is stable ? Explain and conclude why this system is a force for good in the world.
The British Colonies' Rebellions Fighting for freedom During the 18th century, the British Empire became bigger and bigger. It colonized many other
countries
America, Canada
the and
in
North
West
Indies,
India.
Britain
wanted to have a higher profits for
the
Empire
and
more
countries to export or import to. The British Empire was a good and a bad thing at once. Yes, it helped the colonies in some ways like building schools, railways, and bringing law and order and even public health, A map of the British Empire during the 18th century.
but this power also had its bad sides.
The origins of the Rebellion Even if the British Empire brought good things to the colonies, there were still problems. The British wanted the colonies to export raw material and cotton only to them. In addtition to the protectionism, they were other problems that affected the organisation of the British Empire. Indeed, the natives were very poor, and they stayed even after the colonization because Britain colonized these places to become richer. A poster for the rebellion movement
The Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya
Kenya was colonized by the British in 1890. In 1950, some natives from Kenya became upset of the power of the British Empire. They created the Mau-Mau uprising to fight for their rights. But the British army didn't agree with this rebellion and decided to repress this movement. The natives acted under the name of the Kikuyu's community. Illustration of the deads that the rebellion brought and the pain the natives.
In 1952, the British colonial power declared a state of emergency and began a systematic cancellation of the Mau-Mau rebels. This has led to 11 000 victims and more than 20 000 captives on the Kikuyu's side. In 1963, the former leader of the Mau-Mau rebellion took the power in kenya
Questions :
Some Kenyan soldiers ready to fight for their freedom.
1) Which countries did the British Empire colonized during the 18th century ? 2) What are the good and the bad sides of the colonization ?
GUILLEVIC Valentine MARTIN Line
3) What are the origins of the Mau-Mau Rebellion ? Who did this Rebellion ended ?
3
Christianity brought to native people in the colonies : a force for bad ? The bad aspects of the imposed religion.
Natives from the British colonies had lots of different religions to follow : Hinduism and Buddhism in Asia, Tribal cults in North America and Australia.. But today, these religions seems to have suffered from the colonialism. How did the British impose their religion ? And was it a force for bad or for good ? We'll take Canada's example
1 In British schools, the natives were taught the British way : as they learned English and had classical education, teachers made them study Catholicism, without teaching them the traditional native culture.
Canadian natives learning in a British school
2a With the imposed Catholicism religion, natives Americans have lost their traditions as well as their religion, for the majority of them
The lost of the natives traditional religious culture 2a- Around 1850 2b- Nowadays
2b
3
Providing religious services to white settlers also called for missionary effort. The French orders and societies that worked among the Indians also served the colonists of New France. Some leading Protestant organizations were the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (Anglican), the Glasgow Colonial Society (Church of Scotland), the Colonial Missionary Society (Congregational) and the American Home Missionary Society (Congregational/Presbyterian). American preachers founded Methodist and Baptist churches in central Canada, while the Methodists of the Atlantic provinces received missionaries mainly from England. Roman Catholic missions, both white and Indian, were generously subsidized by the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, founded
4
We can see in this photo a catholic missionary with Canadian natives, showing us the Europeans tried to convert directly the natives of the colonies to Catholicism. Europeans have led many missions in Canada as well as the other colonies in the 19th century.
A missionary with Canadian natives
This document makes us know that many missions took part in the convert of the Canadian natives to Catholicism. This shows the colonialist made many things to convert them, spending lots of money in it.
at Lyon in 1822. www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com
Many missions were led in Canada During the colonial era, the British have forced the natives to adopt their religion, Christianity, through different methods : children education, many missions... Resulting to this, Natives have lost their religion and a part of their traditional culture, linked to their religion, in numerous area in the colonized countries. The ethnic diversity lost is ginormous, British people have made Humanity lose lots of its culture and religion liberty. These loss are still seen able.
Vocabulary -Native : Original inhabitants of a colonized country (=Aborigine) -Missionary : Priest leading a conversion aim mission in non-christian countries.
Questions Doc 1 1- Describe the document. Doc 2 2- What do the natives seem to have lost ? Doc 3,4 3- Write a paragraph about the missions. To conclude 4-Write a short text about the imposed religion in the colonies, how they imposed it, and how it was bad.
The Loss of culture in the colonies âž” How the Aborigines lost their culture during the British occupation ?
➢ Doc 1 : Aborigines offer a group of English visitors a ride in their boat, circa 1870. Not all relations between the two groups were this friendly /Hulton Archive
The example of the Australian aborigines The colonization in the history of Australia was very similar to the colonization of the Americas. Once the American Revolution began in 1776, the English
government needed a new place to send its prisoners, since the American colonies would no longer take them. So in 1788, England sent a crew to Australia, then known as New South Wales, and began building prisons. As with the American Indians, the English forced the Aborigines off their land. Many were beaten and killed. Others contracted diseases that were foreign to them. The English forced many of those who weren't killed into slavery. So from the arrival of the British in 1788 to about 1920 the Aborigine population fell by about 90%. Unfortunately, over the next centuries things got worse before they got better. Besides losing hundreds of thousands of lives, the Aborigines also lost much of their culture. They could no longer tell their stories and traditions (for example the Dreaming), and in some cases, there was no one to hear them. History was lost. At the time of colonization, Aborigines spoke an estimated 250-300 different languages. More than half of these have disappeared altogether. QUESTIONS : 1. How are the aborigines represented on the picture ? (doc 1) 2. What is the attitude of the British with the Aborigines ? (doc 1) 3. What happened to the culture of the Aborigines ? (text and doc 2)
➢ Doc 2 : example of Aboriginal art a chameleon, Unknown Artist
Comparison between the Canadian and Australian Aborigines
➢ Doc 3 : stolen Generation children Kahlin Compound, 1921 from Peter Spillett Collection
● Situation The Situation of the Aboriginal population in Canada is similar of the situation in Australia. Indeed, many children (in Australia they were called the “half cast”) were taken away of their families and sent into special schools to be raised according to the principles of the British education system between the middle of 19th century to the middle of the 20 th century. This group of children was called the Stolen Generation in Australia and In Canada, this proceed was called the Indian Residential schools system. This children were not treated well. Many of them died of disease or bad treatments. We considered that more than 50 000 children were removed of their families in Australia and 150 000 passed through the residential school system, and at
least 4,000 of them died while attending the schools ● Apologies
On 13 February 2008 the then Prime Minister, the Kevin Ru12dd , moved a motion of Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples with specific reference to the Stolen Generations. The Prime Minister described it as an occasion for "the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence in the future". The motion honored the Indigenous peoples of this land and reflected in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations: "For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry". On June 11, 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology, on behalf of the sitting Cabinet, in front of an audience of Aboriginal delegates, and in an address that was broadcast nationally on the CBC, for the past governments' policies of assimilation. The Prime Minister apologized not only for the known excesses of the residential school system, but for the creation of the system itself
WEBSITES : - Speech by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd : http://www.dfat.gov.au/indigenous/apology-to-stolen-generations/rudd_speech.h tml -Speech of Prime Minister Stephen Harper : http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3568890 QUESTIONS : 1. Describe the picture (doc 3). 2. What were the British doing with the aboriginal children ? (doc 3 and text) 3. Why were the apologies so important for the Aborigines ? (text) 4. What are the differences and the similarities of the situation of the Canadian and the Australian aboriginal population ? (websites and text)
Amélie GOUREAUX & Barthélémy MARTINOT
Martins'
1
Divide and rule : An English tactic
Introduction :15 August 1947, The Indian Empire was divided into two independent dominions: Indian Union and Pakistan. This partition, which responds to community tensions and the Muslim League campaign for a Muslim state, is accepted by the Indian National Congress. Why just after the living of the english few weeks before, the old empire broke up in different parts ? Come back in the history of one of the biggest colony of the English Empire. 1857
Rising of the cipayes
1858
Government of India Act
1876
Creation of the Impress of India's title
1947 Beginning of the first indoos and pakistanees war
1947
Independence and Partition of India
The Indian Partition caused 12,5 millions of immigrants between India and Pakistan, and overall 100 thousand to 1 million deaths in both camps.
A united India did not exist at that time in political, cultural, or ethnic terms The rebellion was put down with the help of other Indian soldiers drawn from the Madras Army, the Bombay Army and the Sikh regiments, 80% of the East India Company forces were Indian Many of the local rulers fought amongst themselves rather than uniting against the British. Many rebel Sepoy regiments disbanded and went home rather than fight. Not all of the rebels accepted the return of the Mughals. The King of Delhi had no real control over the mutineers. The revolt was largely limited to north and central India. Whilst risings occurred elsewhere they had little impact due to their limited nature. A number of revolts occurred in areas not under British rule, and against native rulers, often as a result of local internal politics. The revolt was fractured along religious, ethnic and regional lines. Even though the rebellion had various causes most of the rebel sepoys who were able to do so, made their way to Delhi to revive the old Mughal empire that signified a national symbol for even the Hindus amongst them. So, the english took India by using the conflicts inside the country. That's why when they left, India broke up between muslims in Pakistan and Hindoos in India. 1) What were the main religions in the Indian Empire ? 2) For you, what do you thnik about this methods ? Are they good to rule or are they bad for the colonies ?
British Empire and the Democracy The terms « Democracy » and « Empire » At first sight the terms « democracy » and « empire » seem to be incompatible with one another. « Democracy », Greek in origin, connotes self-government, local anatomy, liberty. « Empire », Latin in its source and military in its primary signification, calls up ideas of conquest, subjugation, autocracy based on force, alien domination. The great empires of the past were uniformly authoritarian and anti-democratic. Few sayings of classical antiquity have attained a wider currency than the remark which Thucydides attributes to the arch-demagogue Cleon : « A democracy cannot manage an empire » But if history seems to support the proposition that a democracy cannot manage an empire, not less emphatically does it appear to lend countenance to the view that an empire cannot be, or at any rate cannot remain, democratic. Document 1 A British monarchy, pretending to be democracy, in order to have Britain rule the world.
“Will you youths of England make your country again a royal throne of Kings?” – John Ruskin, Oxford, 1873
“The true aim and object whereof shall be …British rule
throughout the world … the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire….” - Cecil Rhodes, late 1800′s
Worldpress.com
Some important definitions to memorize : A democratic empire is a political state which conducts its internal affairs democratically (i.e. with respect for its citizens and their collective will) but externally its policies have a striking resemblance to imperial rule. At the peak of its power, the phrase " the empire on which the sun never sets " was often used to describe the British Empire, because its expanse across the globe meant that the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories. Democracy is a in which all eligible citizens participate equally either directly or through elected representatives in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Evil/Democracy/Güllar
Document 2
If we actually look at the bloody origins of this nation with no blinders on, we will be able to recognize the fact that genocide, slavery, patriarchal subjugation of women and children, white supremacy and military conquest have meant that we have NEVER had a proud, compassionate, just or democracy-loving nation or government. THE BRITISH EMPIRE has financed and sponsored an oppressive regime that they shared with the entire world. They help the Confederates during the American Civil War. They have ripped off cultures in Africa? Why don't these "conspiracy theorists" mention that? Why don't they promote the fact that the British and the Pope have more money than any other group or bank? From 1492 onwards to today, Indigenous, African, Mexican, Asian and female and young people have NEVER had access to generous civil liberties, safety and freedom, constitutional protections or economic prosperity. That glorious right to vote we hear praised as our ticket to freedom has only been “granted� to women for one hundred of the last five hundred years and is still being denied to people of color. http://mikemcclaughry.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/scientology-roots-chapter-sixteen-3-brothers-of-light-createdebt-and-income-tax/
Document 3 The indigenous people in a colony were denied the right to vote, as we know in early-19th-century Britain very few people had the right to vote. A survey conducted in 1780 revealed that the electorate in England and Wales consisted of just 214,000 people - less than 3% of the total population of approximately 8 million. In Scotland the electorate was even smaller: in 1831 a mere 4,500 men, out of a population of more than 2.6 million people, were entitled to vote in parliamentary elections. Worldpress.com
Document 4
Worldpress.com
Questions : 1.Using the introduction and document 1 and 4 say if the British Empire was a force for good or evil? And find some examples. 2.From document 2 and document 3 say why the government prohibited the indigenous people to have the right to vote. Conclusion. Using these documents write a text which explains that the colonized people didn't have the liberty to vote and to choose the way of life.
The deportation of British and Irish convicts to Australia (17881868)
I
n 1775, the British Empire stopped transporting its convicts to America, and chose
Australia to replace it in 1788. This transportation was implemented on a large scale, both for criminals and for people convicted just for relatively minor offenses like theft of food. Not only men were sent to Australia, but women and children over the age of nine too. The convicts were not always violent or dangerous, but all were treated as slave labor and received the worst treatment. These prisoners were condemned to transportation far from their homes, where they would never see their families again, and were deprived of freedom. Between 1788 and 1868 about 165,000 convicts were sent to this convict colony, a new colony was created with these prisoners in Australia, which until then was inhabited only by aboriginal populations.
(http://firstfleetfellowship.org.au/ships/the-voyage/)
DOC 1. The First Fleet entered in Bottany Bay The First Fleet was the name of the first eleven DOC 2. ships which left Great Britain the 13 May 1787 to found a new penal colony in Australia. It carried 1030 passengers, 736 were criminals. It was the first before many others.
In theory, being condemned to a convict colony was a severe prison sentence, for a serious crime. But in reality, however, because the colonies had labour shortage, all sorts of crimes, often relatively minor, led to transportation. When the convicts were condemned, they didn’t’ know if they would come back home and if they could leave. The expression of certain political opinions was also punishable in this way.
KEY DATES :
1770 James COOK was the first European to discover Australia; he took possession of the name of the Crown of England. 1786 The British government decided to establish a convict settlement in Botany Bay 18/01/1788 The first sheep of the First Fleet arrived with Captain Arthur Philipps and the first convicts in Botany Bay. 26/01/1788 Establishment of the first permanent European colony in Port Jackson (who will become the city of Sidney). 1868 End of the deportation of convicts in Australia.
DOC 3 A work of 18th
Like we explained, the convicts couldn’t see their family and their friends again. This engraving from the end of the 18th century represents a chaplain giving his blessing to the condemned people before departure. It was one of the first boats to go to Australia. So, as they didn't know exactly what was going to happen to these convicts, they preferred to give them God's blessing.
(http://www2.istp.org/studentscorner/coindesenfants9899/classproj/cm2brigitte/7projets/eleves/WEBGabi/Recherche/LHistoiredAustralie/HistoireAustralie.html)
DOC 4. (books.google.fr/books. “L'aube d'une nation: les écrivains d'Australie de 1788 à 1910.” by Maryvonne Nedeljkovic)
“Some years before, the prisoner, now called Moodyne Joe, had arrived in the colony. He was a youth –little more than a boy in years. From the first Day of his imprisonment he had followed one course: he was quiet, silent, patient, obedient. He broke no rules of the prison. He asked no favours. He performed all his own work, and often helped another who grumbled at his task. He was simply known to his fellow-convicts as Joe ; his other name was unknown or forgotten. When the prison roll was called, he answered to No. 406” John Boyle O’Reilly” John Boyle O’Reilly was a convict who described the prisoners and their anonymity. Like
Moondye Joe, very often prisoners changed names or were called by numbers. They were often obedient because they wanted to be acceptable. So their nick names and their numbers represented them. In this way they left their past behind them and changed lives.. Moondye Joe's real name was Joseph Bolitho Johns. True or False ? And justify: 1. When the convicts left prison, they could return to Great Britain. 2. Christopher Columbus discovered Australia in 1868. 3. Moodyne Joe wasn't his real name. 4. Being condemned to a convict colony was considered good fortune. 5. There were 736 convicts on the First Fleet. FEUILLIC
Lucie COUVEZ & Camille LE
Anna BORER
Economies : Britain and its colonies We often say the Brirish Empire helped its colonies to become developped nations but ‌ How did Britain become rich and powerful ? Britain did not steal its colonies. It made trading so it could take advantage of all the exotic products of Africa, Asia and America. Britain had colonies all over the world which means very diversed ressources.The main importation were grain (wheat), fish, potatoes, tobacco, wood (lumber), furs, coal, and ores like gold and silver. Britain took an important part in the triangular trade, as shown in the picture below.
â–˛ Map of the exchanges of England in the triangular trade It was domination through trading ; Britain exchanged british-made goods for raw materials or slaves. This picture shows the trading with the african colonies but it was the same with India and the other colonies (though they weren't slavering the people).
The British people was mercantilist i.e. there power was founded on the colect of taxes and the profit of the merchents. At this time, the main thing to control was the transports : navigation. Britain made, in 1651, a Navigation Act : the colonies could buy only from Britain and they could sell there materials only to britain ; they had to use British ships for those exchanges. We could think they were nice to their colonies because they weren't exploiting them freely. It was only calculations. They did not made the mistake the Spanish did in America, they did not exploit and starve them to death because they needed them .
In this picture we see see there richness came from the difference between the money they gave (buying) and the money the earnt (selling). Britain was the only contry of Europe to have such diversed ressources, there colonies were "gold mines". They bought those raw materials cheaper than they would sell them in Britain and Europe and than the value they had for them. Plus, they could sell their products to the colonies at high prices since they had to buy. Britain had made a monopoly out from its colonies.Without forgetting that selling a lot of products made the british people prosper : they had jobs. By trading with its colonies, Britain became very rich – one of the richer of Europe at this time – and its people prospered. But it was at the expence of them !
Questions : 1) What kind of goods were sold by the british people ? By the colonised people ? 2) How evolved the exchanges with the african colonies ? (doc 2) 3) When was the Navigation Act released ? What was its main acts ?
The diseases in the British Empire Topic: People in the colonies had no resistance to the diseases. The British brought with them many died. This needs to be countered with the fact that the British also brought new medical advances to colonies.
In the XIXth century, the British people arrived in the colonies. They brought their knowledge: education, railways, clean water... But they also brought their diseases.
The diseases for the native people. -The plague, was first in Great Britain, then came in all British Empire when the colons arrived. It was a big problem for the colonized people because their body wasn't immunized. The railway system that the British introduced to India in the 1850s allowed for the plague to spread quickly through the country (Hansi, Marwar, Bombay, Prune, Calcutta, Karachi), especially among the native population. The plague is very contagious, it is a horrible disease and the symptom wasn't known by the Indian people. Doc 1: A bubonic plague victim in India (http://thirdplaguepandemic.wikispaces.com) It devastated almost the whole of India until about 1899. The deadly epidemic killed 2 million people: it was a big tragedy for the population.
- Moreover since several centuries, the India is victim of the famine. There were food shortages and the population was hungry. But the 18th and 19th centuries saw the worst famine. The famine was a product of British economic and administrative policies. The British people took the harvest (opium, rice, indigo, cotton...) of the India people who didn’t have enough to eat. Doc 2 : The localization of the famine (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk)
In the all parts of the British Empire, other diseases like the plague, the cholera appeared and the native people couldn’t protect themselves. Consequently, a lot of people died.
Doc 3: The famine in India (wikipedia)
The disease for the British people Of course, the native people weren’t the only people affected by the diseases, the British people too, in particular in West Africa. This country was called the white man’s grave. Indeed, the average life expectancy of British people is very short: only a few months. The Europeans would quickly be stricken down by fatal diseases, like the malaria. The diseases were transported by vermin and rats. The white people weren’t protected against the African’s climate, which is very hot. Thus the great majority of British migrants heading towards the safer temperate colonies of New Zealand, South Africa, South Australia and Canada, where they weren’t afraid to catch diseases transmitted by a caribou.
Fortunately, the British people had built hospitals and the scientists searched and found lots of vaccines to protect themselves against diseases. Doc 4: Missionary Vaccination Locals (www.britishempire.co.u)
Questions: 1- (doc 1 and 3) : Can you describe these photos. Wherein they represent the misery of the native people ? 2-(doc 2) : With the document and your personal knowledge, explain the localization of the famine ? 3- Write a synthesis about the disease in the British Empire using the documents. Marie Albert
The British took Aboriginal land When Cook arrived in Australia, the British declared the land Terra Nullius, it means that there were no one but indeed there were Aborigine. The British didn’t consider the inhabitants of the colonised countries as humans. They were nomad so they didn’t think they had any right to pretend on this land (for the Aborigines). That's why they thought they could take all the land. "Here is a contest between two equals about a country where both claim an undivided right. I think it is allowed on all hands that the Natives have no rights at all." doc 1 "The Americans seem possessed with a species of mania for getting lands which has no bounds. Their Congress, prudent, reasonable and wise in other matters, in this seems as much infected as the people." doc 2 On 10 June 1838 a group of white settlers murdered 28 Aboriginal men, women and children near Myall Creek Station in northern New South Wales, near Bingara. Seven of the killers were tried and hanged. doc3
The Myall Creek Massacre now serves as both a harrowing reminder of Australia’s colonial violence towards Aboriginal people and an example of modern-day reconciliation. When the Aborigines rebelled, the British soldiers slaughtered them and then took their land. Then some people came. It could be prisoners like in Australia. Some people were looking for gold that’s why they chased native inhabitants and took their land because in1851 a prospector found a gold nugget in Australia. Then a lot of people came to dig and they went on Aboriginal land and took it. Or people who were looking for a better life. “Complete mental madness appears to have seized almost every member of the community. There has been a universal rush to the diggings. Bathurst Free Press”
Questions 1째) How do the Whites considered the Natives in the first document? 2째) What does the second document denounce? 3째) Why British people attacked and slaughtered Natives? List reasons.
CESBRON Maxence COURALLY Thomas