Australia and Inferiority Complex - Essay Example

Inferiority Complex Student’s Name: Institutional Affiliation: Inferiority Complex The Australians of the previous generation suffered from an inferiority complex, as well as a deluded sense of identity. This is clearly demonstrated by the zeal of the leaders at the time to be recognized as loyal members to the Crown. They also took the affairs of the British Empire seriously and wanted to be involved in crucial decisions such as the holding of the imperial conferences. This is proved by the fact that over 330000 Australians had pledged their loyalty to the British Empire and well over 50000 Australians had perished during the allied offensive in the Western front. This paper will look at the question of the inferiority complex that was characterized by the enthusiasm displayed by the Australians to participating in the British wars and in the involvement in the affairs of the Empire (Smith, 2007). The presence of the British was strongly felt in the new Common wealth of Australia and most of the previous generation emphasized on belonging to the British Empire. In the new arrangement, the Head of State was an English earl and two Barons, another earl and 3 knights, led the previous colonies that had become States. The Duke and the Butches of York opened the first Common Wealth of Australia parliament in 1901. The Union Jack became part of the new Australian flag. This paper will look at the issue of the Aborigines and crown land and how the native inhabitants of the Common Wealth of Australia suffered from an inferiority complex and lacked a sense of identity in crown land (Smith, 2007). The Australians in the previous generation identified themselves as British and their leaders proceeded to welcome the British immigrants to settle in the country. Sir George Reid who was briefly appointee as the Common Wealth prime minister emphasized of the fact that the New Australia was truly British mainly because at least 96% of the population were of British descent. He welcomed the British immigrants to settle in the country since it did not have aspects that could prove to be disturbing to its citizens. He also indicated of the fact that the country had not experienced extrusion from foreign races and the country had not experienced war that would prove to be a set back to its otherwise splendid progress (Smith, 2007). The fact that British refused to enter into treaties with the Native Australian tribes is a pure indication of the fact that the British considered the Australians as inferior. The common law of England indicates that the ownership of land mainly lied with the sovereign that was reigning at the time. The representatives in the British Crown from the Governor Arthur Philip deliberately chose not to enter into treaties with the Native tribes. They also denied the Aborigines the claims to the Crown land. The government at the time focused on encouraging the settlement in the continent and consolidating the hold of the continent. This led to the selling, giving or leasing of vast tracts of land to the farmers, land speculators, as well as the churches by the specific governments in the various colonies (Smith, 2007). The colonial government, which later transitioned to be the State government, also secured large portions of land for themselves either for security or the land were inaccessible and it was thought to lack any significant economic value (Spearritt, 1999). This land that was not hired, sold, or given for private ownership was referred to as the Crown Land. This led to the lack of a sense of identity to the Aborigines since they felt like the British rulers considered them to be inferior thus they secluded them from the important decisions such as the ownership of land (Barber, 2014). In one of his Australian correspondents, he indicated that the Aborigines in Tasmania often complained that the British had rooted them from their soil. It is simple to assume that the indigenous inhabitants in any land hold a sacred right to their own land. This was however not the case with the Europeans who had entered into Australia and acted as the undoubted lords of the land and punished the natives as well. The Imperial interest in the rights of the Aboriginals to access and own land was overlooked by the colonialist whose sole objective was to consolidate the continent and encourage the British inhabitants to settle in the country. The colonists proceeded to create statutes and rules that guaranteed them of the ability to sell and lease the crown land. The native system of land where the native inhabitants proved of their ownership of land by the presentation of various deeds that followed each other in a chronological manner was abolished. This was replaced by the Torrens system that required the ownership of land to be proved by a single deed. This system played a critical role in opening up the country to foreign settlers. This ensured that the inhabitants could access the otherwise private land and the colonialist could easily grant land to the settlers (Barber, 2014). The Crown however still holds a considerable portion of the Australian Land mass in Queens land and the Northern Territory. The Crown also maintains considerable control over how land is used especially concerning the exploitation of minerals. In the Mabo case that was brought forward by the Torres Strait Islanders opposed to the idea that the Crown ownership of Australia. The findings indicated that the Australian Law recognizes the Native title to the territory where it has not been put out by the crown ((Michael, 1988). The ground breaking by His Majesty King George V for the Australian House in central London in front of Imperial and Dominion officials reaffirmed the Australian commitment to the British Empire. During the opening of the edifice, over 330000 Australians had proved their loyalty to the Empire and over 50000 people had died during the Allied offensive in the Western Front (Elijah, 2006). Australia had established a huge stake in the British Empire and its officials were keen on proving to the King that they took the business of the empire seriously. The Australian house was meant to represent the Imperial business, as well as the Australian Idealism. The Common Wealth of Australia had prepared a lavish brochure that was to inform those who had attended the occasion that on Federation, the Common Wealth required a memorial in the Empire’s Metropolis. The memorial was to prove that Australia was worthy of eminent recognition even in the wealthiest lands and the greatest city (Michael, 1988). The imperial conference was put in place in the mid 19th century when the imperial parliament realized that most of the colonies would form successful and responsible self-governments. The Dominion of Canada was set up through the British-North America Act that led to the commencement of regular colonial conferences held in London. In 1911, the Common Wealth of Australia protested the commitment of the Dominion to the various international treaties that had been reached by the British Empire without consultation. The imperial conference that was held in 1926 and was presided over by Lord Balfour hoped to define the relationship that was to be established between the UK and the various self-governing Dominions (Elijah, 2006). In the conference, it was established that the self-governed dominions were autonomous communities that were established within the British Empire. The Dominions were also defined to be equal in status, as well as in no way subordinate to each other in terms of their internal or external affairs. The Dominions were united by the allegiance to the Crown and associated freely with each other as members of the British Common Wealth of Nations (Michael, 1988). The next conference was held in 1930 in an attempt to solve some of the Legal challenges that were posed by the Balfour method. This included the repealing of the colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 that rendered the Dominion legislation not functional because of the conflict in the laws that led to conflicts with the enactment of laws in the United Kingdom’s Parliament. The Governors and the Governor-generals were defined as representatives of the Crown and not the United Kingdom. In the lecture by Robert Menzies in 1948 on the British Common Wealth for today, the opposition leader referred to the British Empire as opposed to the Common Wealth. Menzies saw Australia in the Imperial context just as many scholars had noticed. The Great Britain had declared war on Germany because of her persistence to the invasion in Poland. This in turn meant that Australia was also at war (Elijah, 2006). The decision has been compared to the Andrew Fisher’s comments that Australians will stand with their own to help to the last man and the last shilling. In light of the facts presented throughout the paper, I would like to agree with the essay question that the Australians suffered from an inferiority complex. This is because the British empire initially colonized the country and completely disregarded the native communities. The Common Wealth of Australia leaders also proceeded to invite the British immigrants to settle in the country. They also altered the treaties on land to grant them the right to own and sell the Crown land to the British immigrants. The British Empire also entered into agreements with the various dominions without consulting the Common Wealth of Australia. This is despite the fact that the Australians had enthusiastically participated in the British wars and over 300000 Australians had pledged allegiance to the British Empire (Elijah, 2006). In conclusion, the Australians in the previous generation who emphasized on the fact that they were part of the British often suffered from an inferiority complex. This is clearly indicated where they were not consulted during the European-North American Act that was established in 1911. The Governors and the governor-generals were also considered representatives of the Crown and not the UK government thus they were not involved in major decisions made by the UK government. As is clear in the essay, my opinion is that the Australians of the previous generation suffered from an inferiority complex, as well as a deluded sense of identity as demonstrated by the zeal of the leaders at the time to be recognized as loyal members to the Crown. Moreover, they took the affairs of the British Empire seriously and wanted to be involved in crucial decisions such as the holding of the imperial conferences. References Australia's Boer War: The War in South Africa, 1899-1902 * One Flag, One Queen, One Tongue: New Zealand, the British Empire and the South African War I. R. Smith Journal: English Historical Review 2007. DOI: 10.1093/ehr/cel410 Barber, K. (2014). History and present Governement. The British Monarchy, 10, 9. Retrieved fromhttp://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Australia/Historyandpresentgovernment.aspx Elijah, A. (2006). Australia and the United Kingdom. The Round Table, 11, 19. doi:10.1080/00358530601046778 Rhetorical and historical aspects of attitudes: The case of the British monarchy Michael Billig Journal: Philosophical Psychology 1988 DOI: 10.1080/09515088808572927 Spearritt, P. (1999). Sydney's century: a history. UNSW Press. Read More