Talk:Penal transportation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Penal transportation is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · history · watch · refresh) If this section is maintained by the Australian portal, then it's perhaps unsurprising that there's a strong bias towards convicts being shipped to Australia, and a lesser extent to the American colonies. But, with th abolition of the Slave trade in the British Empire coming up to celebrate its bicentenary, transportation to the sugar plantations of the West Indies has never been more relevant, more potentially controversial.. or more IGNORED. I've lived most of my life in and around the port of Bristol, in SW England. I attended Colston's Primary School - named (as with many Bristol institutions) after a former slave trader who gave generously to charitable causes. But Bristol was ALSO the setting for the notorious "Bloody Assize" of Judge Jefferies, who hanged hundreds of (alleged) participants in the "Pitchfork Rebellion"... but transported rather more of them to The West Indies. One of them - a doctor from Monmouth named Peter Blood - escaped and found fame as "Captain Blood", the pirate. My point is a simple one: Yes slavery was a BAD thing. But African slaves were seeming treated no worse than white tranportees had been not long before. I'm invited to feel guilty for benefiting from the one... but the other seems simply to have been swept under the carpet. Note how mention here in Wikipedia (qv) of Jefferies' transportations to the colonies is covered by a single line... and WHICH colonies gets no mention at all. It's kind of like mentioning the Nazi Death camps without ANY reference to any of the (many) non-Jewish victims. That's kind of insulting to the memories of the Homosexuals, Communists, Freemasons, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses... Transportation to Australia may have been harsh... but not compared with transportation to a sugar plantation in the West Indies: that was like being moved to Death Row - regardless of your skin colour, race or creed. BigRonW 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What a whishy-washy description!! The British convict system of the 18th century was harsh, brutal, cruel, often in-humane and destroyed the lives of many families and communities. Many, many died in the system, some through the treatment they were subjected to, others by merely being in the system, suffering disease and illness due to their living conditions.

This article should be written to reflect the reality of life as a convict, not just the historical facts. I have 5 transported convicts as ancestors and after some research I now understand a little more of the lives they were forced to lead.--Mikeh 12:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's one of the few hard and fast rules of Wikipedia that all articles must be presented from a neutral point of view. No exceptions. -- Rogerborg 22:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'd be interested in seeing added is some background as to why Britain abandoned transportation. -- Rogerborg 22:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm interested in is the way convicts have been historicized. And what I'm particularly interested in is the way that the convict history of the US, which is arguably more important (in terms of numbers and time, well whay not society/ culture?) than that of Australia, has been down-played in comparison to Australia. Perhaps this is because American history has been written largely by Americans, whereas Australian history has been largely documented by the 'British'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.59.97.25 (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Australia has been embarassed by the convict beginnings, but more recently, as the time passes and it is more remote, it has been embraced. Australia is regarded as initially a convict settlement because the first three fleets were convict based, although on each of them there were free settlers. But in the US, they like to refer to the pilgrms and the Mayflower as the origin. They gloss over theit convict heritage, which lasted twice as long as Australia's. They did have indentured convicts, but it was nevetherless a substantial convict colony. It was the American revolution in 1776 whch stopped the flow of convicts, and the British evnetually turned to Australia (NSW) in 1787. Although it is interesting to note that the worst convicts were not sent to Australia (they needed trades and craftmen to found NSW); and indeed the British are descendents of a greater number of their own convicts (and worse) than Australia. But both nations will try to ignore this. I think the US is more ashamed of their business of stealing human beings and selling them at this time. Alan Davidson 15:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition and inclusion of Pacific Solution

Please check the discussion page on Pacific Solution Paki.tv 02:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

please discuss changes here. Paki.tv 00:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is vague, badly presented, and disjointed.

[edit] Common Usage

As much as it pains me, I have to agree with PJ that the edit the term is still used to refer to contemporary state actions with regards movement of prisoners, such as extraordinary rendition by the US as well as the Australian Pacific Solution [1]. is not really well supported, nor does it read well, nor does it belong in a lede, and would read better in other articles. Reference [1] does not support that it is commonly used, but rather that a (single) author suggests it an analogy. Are there additional references to verify that it is in usage (perferably common usage)? It would be better to have it out of the lede (per WP:LEAD) and have a note to the effect "Commentators have refered to the Pacific Solution as Transportation" over in Pacific Solution. Also we need a source for the Ex Rendition claim and again, it would be better for the reference to be in that article rather than here. At the moment, it's usage here has a hint of trying to make a point rather than making the article more encyclopedic. Shot info 01:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)