Stuck in time: Hobart, Tasmania pictured in the 1950s. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Tasmania, the island with a shameful past and a hopeful future

Australia’s timewarp island was the setting for atrocities against Aborigines in the 19th century and has a harsh treatment of asylum seekers today. Yet many see Australia as a liberal hope for the future. 

Crossing the Bass Strait from mainland Australia into Tasmania is rather like crossing the Solent from England to the Isle of Wight. Insularity breeds a remoteness from the currents of history. And if England’s southern island is a step back to the 1960s, Australia’s equivalent seems redolent of the 19th century in which it was first settled – and of the same issues as colonisation set in train.

As quaint as Hobart, the Tasmanian capital, may seem, with its half-hour rush hour and lack of tower blocks, a drive 200km north to Launceston, the island’s second city, is even more of a time slip. Its broad streets still have the look of a colonial town; its plain shopfronts might still be selling whalebone corsets.

There’s a sense of security to this whole island; but it is a deceptive sensibility. From its beginnings as a western settlement in 1803, Tasmania was witness to extraordinary pressures, to an extent that reverberates today: ideas of exploitation and appropriation that set the tone for the urgent debates of the 21st century.

During my stay, state elections in Tasmania returned a majority Liberal administration pledged to roll back the gains of a powerful green lobby – to the extent of reversing Unesco World Heritage status on parts of the virgin forest. The federal government is also vehement (vicious, some might say) in its treatment of asylum-seekers, who are kept in detainment camps on other islands to the north of Australia..

Driving over the Midlands between Hobart and Launceston, one quickly sees why Tasmania appealed to British free settlers. Van Diemen’s Land, as it was known, offered plentiful resources and rolling landscape that resembled an English country estate. Paintings of 19th-century scenes at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery in Launceston evoke Constable as much as an island at the end of the world. Indeed, new research shows that children of transported criminals fared better than their British peers, benefiting from high protein and sunshine.

Among them was my own ancestor James Nind, transported in 1831 for stealing 19 hens and a cock. In the darkened basement of Hobart’s State Library, lined with chain-link fencing as if to imprison its subjects, I found original documents detailing James’s crimes and his sole previous conviction for the theft of manure. It’s an extraordinary notion: that one could be banished to the other ends of the earth for stealing shit. Nevertheless, James apparently prospered, as did many other convicts, some making vast fortunes from sheep farming (many of the same men had been transported for stealing sheep in the first place).

Yet those fields also became hunting grounds for human beings, as “roving parties” of convicts were sent out to pursue Aboriginal people. Feral bushrangers instituted a new lawless culture of their own: men such as the notorious Michael Howe, who declared himself “lieutenant governor of the woods” and exerted significant political power until he, too, was hunted and decapitated and his head exhibited in Hobart.

It now seems Howe’s gang were outlaws in more than one sense. Hamish Maxwell-Stewart, associate professor in humanities at the University of Tasmania, told me two of its members had been imprisoned for “unnatural acts”, raising the possibility that the troupe was “gay-friendly”. The gang also included Aboriginal females – “two black native women, armed as well as the men”.

New estimates show that at least 800 indigenous people and 200 convicts and settlers died in the “black war”. As we drove north, Maxwell-Stewart spoke of the “White Australia” policy of the early 20th century, which created concerns in the mother country that this racist stance on immigration would cause unrest in the empire, especially India. “There’s no doubt if the Aboriginal population in Australia had been bigger, they would have introduced apartheid,” he said. Indeed, when apartheid ended, many white South Africans emigrated to Australia.

Yet some see Australia as a liberal hope for the future. The South African exile J M Coetzee, renowned for his fictional critiques of apartheid, told me that his adoptive country could be “the future of the anglophone race”. It was a typically cryptic remark from this famously reclusive writer, who now lives in Adelaide. But looking at Tasmania, with its extraordinary natural beauty, and its determination both to remember and to move on from the past into the future despite the ravages of a retrogressive administration, one might start to agree.

Philip Hoare is the author of “The Sea Inside” (Fourth Estate, £9.99)

Philip Hoare’s books include Wilde’s Last Stand, England’s Lost Eden, and Spike IslandLeviathan or, The Whale won the Samuel Johnson Prize for 2009, and The Sea Inside was published in 2013. He is professor of creative writing at the University of Southampton, and co-curator of the Moby-Dick Big Read. His website is, and he is on Twitter @philipwhale.

This article first appeared in the 28 May 2014 issue of the New Statesman, The elites vs the people

Show Hide image

Anti-semitism and the left: something is rotten in the state of Labour

Labour held three separate inquiries into anti-Semitism within its ranks during the first part of 2016. A new book by Dave Rich investigates how we got to this point.

The relationship between the left and the Jews has always been a complex one – ostensibly harmonious but with an underlying unease. For decades, the left’s ideological stance against racism and intolerance made it – in Britain, at least – a natural home for Jews. Its largest party, Labour, could rely on a majority share of Britain’s Jewish vote. Yet the 19th-century German socialist August Bebel, who described anti-Semitism as “the socialism of fools”, understood that, like a tumour, it has always existed in the left-wing body politic.

It is this duality that Dave Rich seeks to explore in his impressive and important book. How, he asks, did we get to the situation in which Labour, the party whose founding principles include opposing bigotry, felt the need to hold three separate inquiries into anti-Semitism within its ranks during the first part of 2016?

For so long, the dichotomy was simple, consisting of a clash of two notions of the Jew: an oppressed figure deserving of the left’s solidarity and the perennial embodiment of socialism’s great enemy, capitalism. In the words of (the Jewish) Karl Marx:


What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money . . . Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities . . . The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew.


Whether or not Marx meant the words ironically (as many academics contend), he articulated the most prominent leftist critique of Jews of his time. However, as Britain’s former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks has argued, anti-Semitism, like any virus, must mutate to survive. Now the most significant word in the quotation above – which Marx uses figuratively – is not “money”, as he would have seen it, but “Israel”.

As Rich notes, the link between British Jews and Israel is almost inviolable. While support for Israeli policies is mixed (there is much opposition to the settlements), he records that 82 per cent of British Jews say that the country plays a central role in their identity, while 90 per cent see it as the ancestral home of the Jewish people. Set against this is his (correct) observation that: “Sympathy for the Palestinian cause and opposition to Israel have become the default position for many on the left – a defining marker of what it means to be progressive.” He argues that once you discover what someone on the left thinks about Israel and Zionism, you can usually guess his or her views on terrorism, Islamist extremism, military intervention and British-American relations.

When Stalin’s show trials and bloodlust finally discredited communism, many on the left, bereft of an ideology, fell into a dull, almost perfunctory anti-Americanism, dressed up as “anti-imperialism”. Intellectually flaccid but emotionally charged, this strand of thought became – to those on the hard left who had for so long been confined to the margins – all-encompassing. The dictum “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”, in effect, was adopted as its slogan. Any Middle Eastern or South American dictatorship that “stands up” to the US ipso facto is an ally, as is any Islamist hate preacher who does so. Israel, viewed as a US-backed colonial outpost, became the physical manifestation of all that was wrong with the world.

With Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader last year, this particular leftist world-view entered the heart of the party. In 2008, Corbyn wrote of the Balfour Declaration – the UK government’s promise to British Jews of a homeland in Palestine – that it had “led to the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and the expulsion of Palestinians . . . Britain’s history of colonial interference . . . leaves it with much to answer for.” The description of Israel as a colonialist enterprise, rather than a movement for sovereignty through national independence, and the culpability of an “imperial” Britain, encapsulate the twin impulses that drive Corbyn’s beliefs about foreign affairs.

The problem, Rich argues, is that it is just a short step from these beliefs to the ideas that Israel should not exist and that its Western supporters, who include most Jews, are racists. Combined with a resurgence of social media-charged conspiracies about Zionist wealth and power, the left has formed an anti-racist politics that is blind to anti-Semitism. Jews are privileged; they are wealthy; they cannot be victims.

Thus, “Zionist” has become not a term to describe a political position but an insult; thus, Jews, unless they denounce Israel (their “original sin”), are excluded from the left that now dominates the Labour Party. When such ideas become normalised, anything is possible. Jackie Walker, the recently suspended vice-chairwoman of the Corbyn-supporting group Momentum, can claim with sincerity that “many Jews” were the “chief financiers” of the slave trade, a modern myth and piece of bigotry popularised by the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan – a notorious anti-Semite – in a 1991 book.

By the middle of this year, as many as 20 Labour Party members had been suspended or expelled for alleged anti-Semitism. At times, Rich appears bewildered. Though he never articulates it, the question “What has happened to my party?” echoes through these pages. Is it a case of just a few bad ­apples, or is the whole barrelful rotten? The answer, Rich concludes convincingly, in this powerful work that should be read by everyone on the left, is sadly the latter. 

The Left’s Jewish Problem by Dave Rich is published by Biteback, 292pp, £12.99

This article first appeared in the 20 October 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brothers in blood