Email and factual mistakes

"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time" - TS Eliot

Feedback

Napoleon Bonaparte once said, "What is history but a fable agreed upon?" The same thing could be said for culture. This site is essentially about trying to ascertain why fables of history and culture might have been agreed upon. This requires speculation about the likely facts as well as the social identity and vested interests that have interpreted them, or corrupted them.

If any reader disputes a fact or believes an interpretation is flawed, please send feedback. As a website, this site is open to scrutiny from the cultures that it considers. This advantage can not be fully harnessed unless those who disagree state their disagreement and are prepared to justify it.

To make contact: convictwally@hotmail.com

Referencing the author of this site

It is not necessary to cite the author of an article obtained online. Students merely need to state the title of the article, the web address and date of access.

The referencing system of the site is somewhat mixed. As a resource that draws information from the web, from newspapers, from books and from academic publications, sometimes it uses the Wikipedia style system, sometimes it used formal academic referencing and sometimes it uses the newspaper referencing system which relies on journalists quoting words and faith being extended that the journalist is being honest.

Referencing of source material used in this site's creation

Please click here for an explanation for why many ideas appear unsubstantiated.

Is this site a reliable resource?

It is often said that websites are not reliable because they can be written by anyone. In truth, this is a website's greatest strength. Because they can be written by anyone, websites are free from many of the corruptive influences that hinder reasoned thought in academic publications and in books.

The main problem with experts from the humanities is that they have shown a trend towards political factionalism rather than individualistic thought. There are probably two main reasons for this. Firstly, opinions in the humanities are validated by the citing the published paper of another academic that has said the same thing. The theory goes that if more than one person believes the opinion, then it must be a fact. Once published, the opinions are further validated when they are in turn cited by more papers. The number of citations is counted and subsequently used to rank the academic as well as the university that employs the academic. This ranking system acts an incentive for academics to write papers that agree with their peers in the hope the peers will cite in return. Secondly, individuals have a vested interest in ensuring that their theoretical tradition gains popular acceptance. If a particular theoretical position gains acceptance, every individual that supported it gains more chances of funding, more chances of their books being set as recommending reading in schools, more opportunities to be used as consultants and more chances of being interviewed by journalists. If a rival theoretical tradition gains acceptance, all these opportunities are lost and the academic may become unemployed. This necessity to have one’s theories gain acceptance gives rise groups of likeminded thinkers pushing the one message. Once accepted, they have a stake in the consensus being maintained. To maintain group solidarity, the "discussion" becomes less about the ideas and more about a moral position that can exert compliance.

A good example of an academic using a moral argument to maintain the status quo can be seen in the writings of Dr Colin Groves, an anthropologist from the Australian National University. Groves supported the Out-of-Africa theory of human evolution and was threatened by a peer, Alan Thorne, who was using skulls found in Australia to argue for multiple region theory of evolution. Groves argued against Thorne's interpretation by framing the debate into a current day political issue supported by his peers. His exact words were,

"Negritos or Homo erectus - either way, the Aborigines were not the first possessors of Australia so the land doesn't really belong to them and the whites needn't feel too bad about dispossessing them. Really good fodder, this, for the One Nation Party, and the Prime Minister needn't feel he has to say "sorry".

In other words, Groves argued that the prehistoric skulls had to be interpreted his way because the rival position was immoral or could affect the way that Australians voted in elections.

Just as academic publications are prone to corruption, so are books. When they are published by a publishing company, their primary aim is to make money, in which case, objectivity is less important that an inspiring read. For example, the 16.2 tonne stone heads (moai) on Easter Island used to baffle sailors and academics. People just couldn't understand how they were created and put into position on an island without trees to serve as rollers. Then in 1947, Norwegian anthropologist Thor Heyerdahl spoke to the locals to find out the answers. They told him that Easter Island once had trees, the statues could be easily carved once the stone was wet, and they could be stood upright using a series of poles. Although the conclusions were all very plausible, in the 1960s Erich von Daniken came along and concluded that the stone heads were built and placed in position by intelligent beings (aliens), who left them to be cared for the natives who didn’t understand them. Von Daniken’s book became a bestseller. As a legacy, there are plenty of people today who consider the Easter Island heads to be one of the world's great mysteries and/or, evidence of alien visitation. Von Daniken’s books sold because they gave readers what they wanted, not because they were logical.

Because there is no great cost to recoup in the publishing of a website, there is no need to compromise objectivity to increase sales. Furthermore, because the author doesn't need to be cited by someone to gain promotions or opportunities, there is no need to agree with what has already been written. Consequently, the author has been able to approach the current thought with a critical mind to assess it as objectively as possible.

Response

In the Internet age, Google has become the first port of call for journalists, students, and even researchers seeking background information for further consideration. In recognition of the words used on the site, and the external sites that have linked to it, Google has ranked Convict Creations very highly on issues concerning Australian culture. The site currently returns the top-ranked page for search terms such as "Australian stereotypes", "Australian Identity" , "egalitarianism in Australia", "Aboriginal war", "Power inequality in Australia" and "Australian environmental problems." For almost five years, it also returned the top-ranked page for the search terms "Australian culture." It is now the third-ranked page.

In recognition of the market response, content from this site has been included in two different high school textboks in two different countries. In addition, it has been recommended as a guide for schools compiling educational material, it has been copied by websites dealing with migration, business and education in Australia, it has been indexed by libraries for future generations, it has been plagiarised by lazy public servants needing to write content for websites such as cultureandrecreation.gov.au and it has been profiled by at least three different newspapers.

From September 2008 to September 2009, there were 596,822 unique visits and 1,392,056 page views. The following year there were 726,316 unique visits and 1,329,001 page views. Furthermore, it was linked to by 7,777 external pages. The vast majority of the audience has been Australian. The traffic is small in comparison to a top youtube video, but, for the average internet user around the world, the subject is perhaps not as interesting as the top subjects in youtube.

The biggest criticism of the Internet as an educational resource is that websites can be written by anyone. In truth, this is the Internet's greatest strength. Because barriers to entry are low, the Internet is a very competitive medium and the only reason a site will get read is because people find something useful in it. If the intellectual quality is not there, the site (or page) will be one of billions upon billions of other sites that simply gets ignored. To put things into perspective, in 2007, it was estimated that there were around 70,000,000 websites and 29,000,000,000 web pages. There were only 801,000,000 Internet users. To get one visit a year is above average.

Author's political beliefs

For me, labels such as left wing and right wing are meaningless because a right-winger is just a left-winger with power (as Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin so clearly demonstrated.)

My faith in the adversarial legal system (trial by jury) over the inquisitorial legal system (trial by judges) perhaps best indicates my political beliefs. The adversarial legal system has been criticised because it places faith in 12 ordinary people. Some of these people may be bogans, farmers or people who seek advice from Dr Phil's talkshow. On the other hand, the inquisitorial system places faith in ethical judges who have studied the law. (It has its roots in the hierarchical organisation of the Catholic priesthood.) Unfortunately, it is also a system that is conducive to undercover payments, crony appointments to judicial positions, unquestioned ego and unscruitised decision making. Symbolically, it also reaffirms beliefs that the average person is an idiot and it is only the educated elites who should make decisions.

In many ways, the characteristics of each legal system are also reflected in the societies that use them. Overall, I have more respect for the countries that use the adversarial (jury) system. Generally speaking, they tend to be more socially harmonious, more fair, more adaptable and have greater economic prosperity. They are not without flaws, but they are more capable of addressing those flaws or ensuing that one flaw doesn't bring the whole system down.

In Australia, there are some people who are more inclined to have faith in an inquisitorial legal system and this is reflected in their policies in respect to areas of Australian life. Basically, they favour a form of governance in which individuals serve their own interest by brown nosing others with power. Merit is irrelevant, as is keeping the public happy. The system eventually leds to repression because the public lacks power. This repression is justified with insults which propose that the public is too ignorant, too uneducated, too racist, too un-cultured, or too stupid to have a voice. In addition, the public is deemed in need of protection against themselves. Even when individuals within the bureaucracy realise it doesn’t work and/or is abusing its power, they tend to turn a blind eye because taking a stand would result in them becoming victims of the bureaucracy as well. When I see other Australians advocating policies that concentrate power in a bureaucracy, I find myself feeling alienated from them.

Because  I believe it is important to have faith in the common person, I believe it is important to provide opportunities for all. Although it is counter-intuitive for me to have faith in the ideas of potato farmers who believe the earth was created 4,000 years ago and/or that they were abducted by aliens, I think the success of democratic countries over authoritarian countries shows that having faith in the common person, and people unlike yourself, ultimately leads to a superior collective outcome. Just as a biological ecosystem needs its diversity in order to be more adaptable to change, so too does a social ecosystem.

A scene from the Gallipoli. In the confused questions of an old camel driver that knows nothing about the war, the scene shows that ignorance can sometimes be the voice of wisdom.

Author's name

Most authors cite their name because they want to take credit for their work. This is not a motivation for the site’s author because the site is not part of any vocational agenda. Because the website was constructed out of curiosity, the author is quite happy to be like the millions of anonymous Wikipedia authors who go about their work because it is interesting to them and nothing more.

Author's nationality

If the author was Dutch, the website might be quite liberal. If the author was English, the website might have a whinging tone. If the author was Jewish, the site might be economical in its construction. If the author was African, it might have a humorous rhythm flowing through it. If the author was Irish, it might show a fondness for booze. If the author was French, the website may have some ideas about the intimate rendezvous that are the spark of life. If the author was Scottish, parts of it would be impossible to understand.

The author may be a combination of all such nationalities, so perhaps aspects of each can be found in the site. Alternatively, the author may be an Australian. So what characterises an Australian? A wise Englishman once said that an “Australian is someone who reads comic books without moving his lips.” Considering such observations, perhaps there is no need to look for wisdom in the sight. Then again, stereotypes are not always true.