The Dictionary of Human Geography

Comp. by: LElumalai Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_A Date:31/3/09
Time:21:44:15 Filepath://ppdys1108/BlackwellCup/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-
9781405132879/appln/3B2/revises/9781405132879_4_A.3d

Australia and New Zealand – all expected mi-

grants to assimilate for most of their history.

Recently, Canada and Australia have adopted

the policy ofmulticulturalism as a new

mode of migrant integration, which is a kind

of hybrid between assimilation and pluralism

(Hiebert and Ley, 2003). Several European

countries also adopted multicultural policies

in the latter decades of the twentieth century,

notably the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK.

Other European countries, such as France and

Germany, have been wary of multiculturalism

and continue to expect migrants to assimilate.

In the aftermath of terrorist incidents and sev-

eral episodes of social unrest, those European

countries that adopted multiculturalism

appear to be reconsidering that decision, and

may be returning to assimilation as a means of

integration (Vasta, 2005). These debates have

been highly politically charged, and critics

of the return to assimilation have argued that

it reflects an Islamophobic agenda. dh

Suggested reading

Massey and Denton (1993).

asylum Asylum has two distinct meanings in

human geography. One stream of work has

been directed towards the (historical) geog-

raphy of institutions for mental illnesss (Philo,

2004; and seemedical geography). Another

body of work examines asylum as the displace-

ment ofrefugeesfrom one state to another, in

which they seek sanctuary from violence and

political persecution (Hyndman, 2000). The

two are very different, but both of them raise

searching questions about marginalization and

the production and location of ‘outsiders’. jh

Austral(as)ia, idea of The term ‘Australasia’

is a construct ofimperialism. As a means

of delineating and denoting a diversity of

far-flung colonialterritories, it had wide cur-

rency in the nineteenth century, both in the

metropole and regionally. If it retains some

utility in the former context, it is ‘a repressed

memory’ in the latter (Denoon, 2003). This

is despite continually evolving regionalnet-

worksof economy,migrationand, to a lesser

extent, collectivememory.

‘Austral’ means ‘belonging to the south’, so

‘Australasia’ is literally to the south of, but

distinct from,asia. The term was coined in

1756 by the Frenchman Charles de Brosses

for one of his three divisions of the great south-

ern continent. Belief in the existence of this

continent– also known asTerra Australis–

entered the Europeangeographical imagin-

ationfrom sources in classicalcartography.

The search for it was one of the purposes of

James Cook’s voyages to the Pacific; what

eventually emerged were the islands of the

Pacific and continental Australia.

‘Australasia’ came to have flexible meaning,

butusuallyencompassedtheBritishcolonieson

the Australian mainland along with Tasmania,

New Zealand, Fiji, British New Guinea

(Papua),theSolomonIslands,theCookIslands

and Tonga. The construct reflected the shared

interests of British colonists and capital in the

region,theirsecurity dependent ontheimperial

navyandtheirpoliticallegitimacyontheimper-

ial parliament. The continuing popularity in

Australia of Blainey’s bookThe tyranny of dis-

tance(1966) indicates that (western)europe

remains for many a cardinal cultural reference

point.

But shared interests were also undercut by

other, conflicting, perspectives. The eventual

outcome of the 1890 Australasian Federation

Conference was the federation, in 1901,

of the Australian colonies alone. The term

‘Australasia’ became tainted, particularly in

New Zealand, one of whose representatives

at the 1890 meeting had underlined its con-

cern about Australian dominance by describ-

ing his homeland as a ‘rather remote part of

Australasia’ (in Mein Smith, 2003, p. 312).

There were also anxieties, in New Zealand

and the Pacific islands, that matters of ‘native

administration’ would be silenced in an

Australian-dominated Federal parliament.

This reflected the particularities of relations

with indigenous peoples in the different

territories.

In the 1920s ‘Australia Unlimited’ was pro-

moted by boosters who envisaged population

capacities of 100–500 million and saw a dom-

inant Australia as ‘the future pivot of white

settlement in a secure and revivified empire’

(Powell, 1988, p. 131). The geographer

Griffith Taylor, whose prediction of a popula-

tion of only 20 million in 2000 was prescient,

challenged this vision cartographically, label-

ling much of the Australian interior as ‘un-

inhabited’ and ‘almost useless’. This echoed

another colonial imaginary, that of Australia

asterra nullius, or no one’s land, prior to

European settlement. Not until the Mabo

judgement of 1992 was native (or aboriginal)

title recognized in Australian common

law(Whatmore, 2002c) (cf.aboriginality).

Mabo has ‘unsettled’ Australia, bringing to the

fore contestations over national aspirations

that also characterize the other countries

of what was ‘Australasia’. The past has also

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_A Final Proof page 39 31.3.2009 9:44pm

AUSTRAL(AS)IA, IDEA OF