What do you think?
Rate this book
Colony: Strange Origins of One of the Earliest Modern Democracies
In 1856 South Australia had the secret ballot, votes for all adult men, and religious freedom, and in 1857 self-government by an elected parliament. The framework of a modern democracy was established. How did South Australia become so modern, so early? How were British institutions transformed, and why did the Colonial Office allow it?
311 pages, Paperback
First published December 31, 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 29, 2023
Oh dear, this is a bloody ordinary book! Talk about your mish-mash of reasonable social history, terrible prose, solid research, a fragmented narrative and an overall failure to deliver a coherent analysis of what is set out by the title of the text! Hamilton has taken what I suspect was a modest proposal for a family history and turned it into a chaotic and at times redundant exploration of the early political developments in South Australia. It's such a shame because there is a kernel of a fascinating discussion here, and one can see that he understands the value of contemporary sources and anecdotal evidence when it comes to bringing history 'alive'. Sadly I think in this case history was already mangled and misdiagnosed in the first place.
The first section of this book deals with the social and political history of the English coastal town of Dover. In and of itself it's not bad, and I suspect that many people who are fascinated by Georgian England and the socio-political development of that country during the early years of the Industrial Revolution will find much to appreciate. The problem is that for the most part Hamilton's study seems disconnected with the task he has set for himself, and in the process the expectations of his readers, viz the roots of South Australian democratic radicalism. The background material is useful I suspect in some way, but Hamilton's manner of approaching his main theses seems to have eluded me (and I would argue him) in his study of Dover. No doubt there will be plenty of readers from that town and the county of Kent who will love what Hamilton has done; as for me, it was okay.
The bulk of the book is about the early colonial socio-political history of South Australia, and here Hamilton is on firmer ground at least in terms of what he is trying to analyse. If one sets out to try and work out how South Australia established some of the most radical political developments in the mid-19th Century British imperial context then its imperative that you know what you're talking about, what the historical information offers and how to use this to develop your arguments. The problem is Hamilton does pretty well with the first of these two elements of his text, but falls down rather badly in the third.
Hamilton emphasises the British (or should that be English) roots of early South Australian society, which he sees as intrinsically linked to the overarching desire for and operation of political self-determination, and then endeavours to tease out the strands of how this became dominated by a radically different approach to issues such as the ballot, state aid to the church, indigenous and women's suffrage and payment for politicians. The core of his thesis of the raison d'etre for such a situation seems to be a combination of the influence of Chartist beliefs and the unique free settler construct of South Australia. This is all well and good and I suspect Hamilton is on the money.
The problem is for the most part Hamilton frames his arguments and evidence associated with Chartism and South Australia's free settler social foundations in a melange of ideas, facts and arguments that criss-cross chronology, colonial and imperial boundaries and what one would like to see in a far more effectively structured text. He does well to discuss the early voting process held for the Adelaide corporation in 1842, and has some interesting material on the development of the South Australian Legislative Assembly and Council, but this is then interrupted or diverted from with discussions about his ancestors and their colonial vineyard operations. Great detail is provided about the political disputes between various elements of South Australian society in the period from foundation/invasion to the mid 1860s, and Hamilton has some great yarns to offer based on his copious research notes. Yet he almost completely dismisses the German/Silesian immigrants as if they were almost totally irrelevant, or for that matter the importance of the Cornish community and the mining towns of Kapunda, Burra and Little Cornwall.
It must also be said that Hamilton's narrative on the Kaurna peoples is useful, and he offers some valuable insights into the relationship between the South Australian colonists and the First Nations peoples of the Adelaide district. However, there is something covertly dismissive about what Hamilton says; for much of his discussion of this key issue in the early history of South Australia he seems to see the Aboriginal peoples as a convenient element of his colonial narrative, and one that doesn't always sit so easily with the nominally progressive aspects of Hamilton's historical personages.
The analysis of the relationship between early South Australian radicalism, Chartist ideals and the matter of state support for the Church is reasonably sound, but brought in way too late and also without sufficient exploration or background material. If I had been Hamilton's editor I would have made the author revisit his book's structure and tackle these two key historical issues front and centre from the get go. In fact Hamilton should've been told to jettison the entire Dover section of his book and focus solely on how certain socio-political ideas from Britain were developed, then introduced into the unique colonial construct of 'free' South Australia and then exploited and manipulated by the local elite to help frame what has become known as 'the Athens of the South'.
One final irritant that must be mentioned. Why did the editors and publishers think it was useful to include some colour plates depicting colonial paintings that do not definitely illustrate Adelaide. I'm sorry, but when one sees images in a book about South Australia captioned 'Melbourne or Adelaide' it hardly fills one with confidence when it comes to the authoritative value of this book as a South Australian history text.
All up I was severely disappointed by Hamilton's book. Colony: Strange Origins of One of the Earliest Modern Democracies is a higgledy-piggledy attempt to combine a vanity family history project with some potential useful colonial political history. I don't think Hamilton is as fault here, as he has produced some solid arguments and done plenty of research to back up his work. The editor of this book and the publishers however deserve all the opprobrium that can be given; why they let this book be published in the form and structure it was beggars belief.
The first section of this book deals with the social and political history of the English coastal town of Dover. In and of itself it's not bad, and I suspect that many people who are fascinated by Georgian England and the socio-political development of that country during the early years of the Industrial Revolution will find much to appreciate. The problem is that for the most part Hamilton's study seems disconnected with the task he has set for himself, and in the process the expectations of his readers, viz the roots of South Australian democratic radicalism. The background material is useful I suspect in some way, but Hamilton's manner of approaching his main theses seems to have eluded me (and I would argue him) in his study of Dover. No doubt there will be plenty of readers from that town and the county of Kent who will love what Hamilton has done; as for me, it was okay.
The bulk of the book is about the early colonial socio-political history of South Australia, and here Hamilton is on firmer ground at least in terms of what he is trying to analyse. If one sets out to try and work out how South Australia established some of the most radical political developments in the mid-19th Century British imperial context then its imperative that you know what you're talking about, what the historical information offers and how to use this to develop your arguments. The problem is Hamilton does pretty well with the first of these two elements of his text, but falls down rather badly in the third.
Hamilton emphasises the British (or should that be English) roots of early South Australian society, which he sees as intrinsically linked to the overarching desire for and operation of political self-determination, and then endeavours to tease out the strands of how this became dominated by a radically different approach to issues such as the ballot, state aid to the church, indigenous and women's suffrage and payment for politicians. The core of his thesis of the raison d'etre for such a situation seems to be a combination of the influence of Chartist beliefs and the unique free settler construct of South Australia. This is all well and good and I suspect Hamilton is on the money.
The problem is for the most part Hamilton frames his arguments and evidence associated with Chartism and South Australia's free settler social foundations in a melange of ideas, facts and arguments that criss-cross chronology, colonial and imperial boundaries and what one would like to see in a far more effectively structured text. He does well to discuss the early voting process held for the Adelaide corporation in 1842, and has some interesting material on the development of the South Australian Legislative Assembly and Council, but this is then interrupted or diverted from with discussions about his ancestors and their colonial vineyard operations. Great detail is provided about the political disputes between various elements of South Australian society in the period from foundation/invasion to the mid 1860s, and Hamilton has some great yarns to offer based on his copious research notes. Yet he almost completely dismisses the German/Silesian immigrants as if they were almost totally irrelevant, or for that matter the importance of the Cornish community and the mining towns of Kapunda, Burra and Little Cornwall.
It must also be said that Hamilton's narrative on the Kaurna peoples is useful, and he offers some valuable insights into the relationship between the South Australian colonists and the First Nations peoples of the Adelaide district. However, there is something covertly dismissive about what Hamilton says; for much of his discussion of this key issue in the early history of South Australia he seems to see the Aboriginal peoples as a convenient element of his colonial narrative, and one that doesn't always sit so easily with the nominally progressive aspects of Hamilton's historical personages.
The analysis of the relationship between early South Australian radicalism, Chartist ideals and the matter of state support for the Church is reasonably sound, but brought in way too late and also without sufficient exploration or background material. If I had been Hamilton's editor I would have made the author revisit his book's structure and tackle these two key historical issues front and centre from the get go. In fact Hamilton should've been told to jettison the entire Dover section of his book and focus solely on how certain socio-political ideas from Britain were developed, then introduced into the unique colonial construct of 'free' South Australia and then exploited and manipulated by the local elite to help frame what has become known as 'the Athens of the South'.
One final irritant that must be mentioned. Why did the editors and publishers think it was useful to include some colour plates depicting colonial paintings that do not definitely illustrate Adelaide. I'm sorry, but when one sees images in a book about South Australia captioned 'Melbourne or Adelaide' it hardly fills one with confidence when it comes to the authoritative value of this book as a South Australian history text.
All up I was severely disappointed by Hamilton's book. Colony: Strange Origins of One of the Earliest Modern Democracies is a higgledy-piggledy attempt to combine a vanity family history project with some potential useful colonial political history. I don't think Hamilton is as fault here, as he has produced some solid arguments and done plenty of research to back up his work. The editor of this book and the publishers however deserve all the opprobrium that can be given; why they let this book be published in the form and structure it was beggars belief.
Displaying 1 of 1 review