Outpost of Empire

Geoffrey Blainey's book, The Tyranny of Distance, was a highly controversial new interpretation of the founding of Australia which challenged the common view of historians and the populace alike that Australia was primarily a place for Britain to dump it's convicts. In it he argues that Australia was in fact recognised by British politicians as a land of plenty and utility for Britain to take advantage of. His most controversial claim was that Australia was too far away to simply send convicts, it had to have some other advantage to be worthwhile.

Since times contemporary to the colonisation itself it has been assumed that Australia was simply a 'dumping ground' for convicts, as can be seen through the writing of Henry Fielding in 1751 and John Howard in 1777. In each of these sources the overcrowding of prisons in the British Isles and growing inequity in the cities is highlighted and lamented. Indeed it is easy to see why Blainey's argument was controversial, as it went against contemporary historianism, interpreting the Primary source material in a very different way. Blainey focused in particular on the writings of both Joseph Banks, the naturalist, in 1779 and Lord Sydney in 1789, arguing that  the Australian colony was founded for the 'advantageous return' and New Zealand hemp and flax which are mentioned in the sources.

His new history was also controversial because of the perceived simplicity of his argument. In Charlie Fox' analysis of the great debate he shows how Blainey has come under fire for his argument that distance is such a defining factor in colonialism. Indeed P.J. Marshall identifies three key factors for colonising Australia: economic, military and moral and Geoffrey Bolton criticised Blainey for this, saying that no one factor can explain all historical answers.  

To conclude, Blainey's Tyranny of Distance was so controversial because it revisited old sources and old ground and came up with a new, somewhat patriotic history, which acknowledged the merit of Australia in it's own right, not simply as a convict 'dumping ground'. Blainey's overarching idea, that the distance between the countries proved Australia to be financially beneficial to England, has also caused controversy for its simplicity and arguable lack of scope. It cannot be doubted, however, that his research was important in that it challenged the assumed history of Australia and paved the way for future research.

 

Joseph Banks - the botanist who's advocacy of Australia's natural wealth influenced Blainey's work. He claimed that Australia would be of benefit to Britain and would support European plants and animals well, yielding 'advantageous return'

Accessed at: National Library of Australia: http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an9283237