[Pil-pc-oceania] Janet, Robyn's ideas

[Graeme George - Earthcare Permaculture]

Russ

I'm a bit puzzled where you get the notion that "Australasia" includes 
SE Asia and the Pacific. The "Australasia" I've grown up with has always 
included New Zealand as well as Melanesia. "Australasia" only extends 
into SE Asia as far as Wallace's Line and only those islands of 
Indonesia that lie east of Wallace's Line can be included as they are 
geologically a part of the Australasian plate and share a common 
heritage of geology, plants and animals. My understanding would also 
exclude the Pacific islands of Micronesia and Polynesia as they have no 
geological connections with the Australian continent. I recall that 
attempts by our political leaders to get us into SE Asian forums a few 
years back were met with some considerable hostility, suggesting our SE 
Asian neighbours don't consider themselves part of Australasia.

Using the nested pattern of Permaculture zoning we are part of 
Australasia along with Timor, New Guinea, the Melanesian Islands and New 
Zealand. The next outer zone would bring in South East Asia and the SW 
Pacific Islands. Our ":sense of place" can only be diminished by 
re-defining this wider region as Australasia.

As a member of the Organising Committee for APC8 in Melbourne in 2005, I 
have to take some of the responsibility for not running with the 
"Australasian" tag for that Convergence. Permaculture Melbourne's OC was 
simply unaware of the resolution to use that terminology. I also note 
that New Zealanders ran their own National convergence recently, so it 
may be easier to continue to organise nationally, even though our focus 
will inevitably be regional..

Regards

Graeme

RussGrayson wrote:
> Hi Robyn and Janet and others...
>
>
> POINT 2: THE AUSTRALASIAN CONNECTION
> The point goes beyond the focus of APC9 to the actual use of the terminology
> altogether.
>
> 'Australasian' is a geographic term implying Australia, South East Asia and,
> sometimes, New Zealand. It is good as far as it goes, however it does not
> include the complete Australian region. In fact, it is notable for the vast
> area excluded - the South West Pacific.
>
> Instead of Australasia, may I propose we use 'Australasia-Pacifc' as it
> reflects contemporary and historic associations between Australia and these
> two bordering regions. And... It includes New Zealand (which happens to be
> situated in the Pacific).
>
> In our history, Australia's trading and interpersonal associations with the
> Pacific predated our firm connections with South East Asia. That region
> mainly became prominent with the Japanese advance through in the early years
> of World War Two. The same could be said for the South West Pacific, however
> the Pacific region was already known to Australians with an outward-looking
> view of the world. Our nation had traded with the region for some time (and
> some of its citizens had more or less kidnapped Pacificans to work
> Queensland's cane field).
>
> The national focus on South East Asia developed to a dominant level during
> the decoloniaalisation process of the late-1950s, early 1960s, when
> Indonesia, under Sukarno, came to be seen as a threat. In turn, that was
> reinforced by the conflict in Vietnam (remember the Domino Theory?).
>
> What I am getting at is that we in permaculture should recognise the Pacific
> as much as we recognise South East Asia (as defined in 'Australisia'). From
> my own work in the region, I can say that Pacificans view Australia as the
> big power of the region and as the major influence. For them,
> Australia-Pacific is real.
>
> I guess this is a plea to adopt Australasia-Pacific as the reality term for
> where we live. Then. At least, the New Zealanders might be happy too.
>
>   
> ...Russ Grayson
>
>