Australia and the Portuguese discoveries

A few reflections on history never go amiss. For instance who “discovered” Australia? Of a certainty the “First People” arrived here over 65 000 years ago. I mean who were the first Europeans to see and or visit Australia? A Brit - Capt Cook? The French? The Dutch? The Portuguese?

In my humble opinion that honour must fall to the Portuguese. Just look at their time line in the Indian Ocean area:-

·      Vasco De Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope in 1488.

·      Just off the coast of Western Australia near the city of Geraldton are the low lying Abrolhos Islands. It has been asserted by some that Abrolhos is an English corruption of the Portuguese phrase Abre-olhos!  - which roughly translates as “Open your eyes!” or “Look out!”

·      The enclave of Goa, on the West coast of India, was established in 1498. 

·      The small Island of Timor (just 285 miles – 460km, North of Australia) was colonized in 1516.

·      It is generally believed that Cristovao Mendonca sailed down the East coast of Australia in about 1521.

·      Mendonca had three ships in his little fleet but only one returned. One ship was lost in a storm – last seen heading East across the Tasman Sea towards what is now New Zealand and one ship was wrecked. This wrecked ship is possibly the origin of the “legend of the Mahogany Ship” alleged to be in the sand dunes near Warnambool, on the coast of State of Victoria. 

With all this, admittedly circumstantial evidence, to my way of thinking, it would be impossible for the Portuguese navigators to have “missed” Australia. That just doesn’t make sense to me!!

All this is complicated, however, by the secrecy surrounding these Portuguese voyages. Most of Australia - “Java le Grande” – on the early maps was in the Spanish sphere of influence. In 1494 the Pope Alexander VI – after some dispute with the Portuguese King Joao II – decreed the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. This Treaty split the world into two – the Portuguese sphere stretching from part of the East coast of South America (now Brazil) to a line which is almost the State line between Western Australia and the other States. 

This is why Brazilians speak Portuguese but Argentina, Peru, and Chile and other countries in South America are Spanish speaking and why Timorese speak Portuguese whereas people in the Philippines speak Spanish. 

Another complication was that because of the rivalry with Spain and the secrecy involved, all Portuguese Captains involved in these explorations, had on the pain of death, at the completion of each voyage, to hand over to the Maritime Archivist in the Casa da India, all log books, maps, charts and journals. This was to comply with the Politica do Sigilo (The Policy of Secrecy).

Nothing can now be categorically proved as these carefully stored historical documents were totally destroyed in the great earthquake and resulting fire in 1755, which demolished much of Lisbon.

An earlier rendition - Magucha's bio - in her own words

From, “Travellers and Migrants”, by Andrea Witcomb. A publication produced by Community Access Gallery, Fremantle History Museum.

Magucha’s “Biography” based on an oral history interview, as recorded by Andrea Witcomb on 24^th September 1997.

{I have made minor corrections with spelling}. 

Maria Augusta Bandeira de Lima Campbell-Watt (Magucha) was born in Lourenco Marques (now called Maputo), the capital of Mozambique on 9^th May 1953. Her parents were both Portuguese. Her family had always travelled between the Portuguese colonies as her father’s family had been in the army and therefore they were frequently transferred from one place to another.

Her parents met when Magucha’s mother came to visit her sister in Nampula, in Mozambique. She was 25 years old. Magucha’s father was doing his military service in the same town of Nampula. They decided to live in Lourenco Marques where her mother developed her career as a radio announcer as well as an actress – both on radio and on the stage.

When Magucha was seven years old they went to Portugal for six months for a holiday. This was quite usual for colonial families. They met their grandparents for the first time. Her own father had not seen his family for twenty-two years and her mother had not been back to Lisbon for ten years.

Magucha recalls that, “When we got to Portugal, my mother decided she did not want to return to Mozambique. My father arranged a new job with an Angolan iron ore 

company which belonged to some cousins and then we transferred to Angola. 

The problem had been that my mother had ten years of fame while my father put his profession to one side to give my mother a chance to do well. My father worked at Sonape, a petroleum company. His work was really from nine to five so he could look after us and what was happening at home. We had maids, everyone had maids in Africa. But there was a need for someone to take responsibility because my mother worked all hours, it could be late at night or really early in the morning. So it was thought that it was my father’s turn to develop his career and for my mother to take a step back in hers. When we got to Angola she arranged some work as a radio announcer but only part-time. She didn’t work so many hours again.”

Magucha did her primary school in Mozambique, Portugal and Angola. Her high school was all in Angola. She decided she did not want to go to university so she went to Escola Industrial e Commercial (Industrial and Commercial School) where she took a secretarial course. She specifically chose not to do educacao feminine (feminine education). She wanted to go to work as soon as possible.

“When I finished I wanted to go to work but because I was very young my father did not let me. He sacked the maids and made me stay at home where I cleaned. I stayed for six months, for I did not like it. I said no, I am going back to school. So I did an exam and gained admission to the Industrial and Commercial Institute. I only did a year for I was offered a good job as ground hostess in what, at that time, was called the DTA. My father let me work this time as he knew the people involved and knew where I would be. Later in the same place I was offered a job as air-hostess which I accepted. It was really to teach Angolan people how to be hostesses. The airline had become an Angolan one. This was in 1971, 1972.”

After the revolution (1974), everyone was optimistic. But of course, problems soon began appearing: According to Magucha, “the principal problem in Angola was the fact that there were three different parties. No one knew who said what. If you wanted to remain together it was better not to belong to any group. It began to get a bit violent. We had to leave. I knew that there was a pilot who was going to escape with a plane. Our routes were Mocamedes, Windhoek, Sa da Bandeira, Luanda. So, his intention was to go to Mocamedes, Windhoek and not return. We arranged to fill the plane with family members. I escaped on that plane with my mother and youngest brother.”

When the plane reached Portugal they were put in a kind of prison for having hijacked the plane until the plane was returned to Angola and everything was all right. Magucha herself became sick and they used to let her out to get nursed. She stayed in Portugal for a while. In the meantime, her father and eldest brother made their way in a car convoy to South Africa. They eventually ended up in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) where the Rhodesian government paid for their family to join them.

Rhodesia became Zimbabwe. At first it seemed to be a controlled changeover but the situation became threatening. Magucha herself was beaten on the street for being on the wrong side of the road when some guerrillas came through. This prompted her and her husband Andrew (a Scot* born in Durban, who grew up in Rhodesia) to leave Rhodesia. Magucha’s family had already left for Portugal as they did not want to go through a civil war again.

Andrew visited Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. He thought Perth was the most similar to Salisbury, the capital of Rhodesia. They decided to come. In the meantime they had put their names forward to return to Portugal, go to Brazil, to America and to Australia. They resolved that whatever came first they would accept. They began to study the atlas and read books about Australia. As it happened they were offered a place in Australia.

Magucha liked Perth immediately. She was particularly taken by all the water here: “I liked it a lot the moment I arrived in Perth. For I like water and Perth had water all around it. There were beaches. For me it was my liberation. It was here that I learned to drive a car. I became more independent with my own friends. It was completely different. Of course I already knew how to speak English because of my husband. I can’t say it was all easy. As soon as we arrived my daughter burned herself badly. I wasn’t used to kitchens in the middle of the living room. In Africa they are a separate room and one can shut the door. Babies don’t go into them. Here, Carolina managed to touch a cup of hot coffee which went all over her. She was only one year old. She had to stay in hospital … it was fairly serious.”

The Australian government provided the family with accommodation at Noalimba …They had two rooms and the bathrooms were outside. It was a migrant hostel for English speakers only. They were sent there because her husband was Scottish. The Portuguese always went to Graylands. However, she was frequently called to translate for Portuguese families. She is still friends with the first family she helped in this way.

They were allowed to stay at Noalimba for a few months, longer than usual because of Carolina’s condition. They received unemployment benefits until Andrew got a job. This was welcomed because they could now pay for their meals at Noalimba giving Magucha the time to be with Carolina in the hospital. Their other child Robin, went to school very near Noalimba. The other families helped look after Robin until Magucha came back from the hospital.

Although the family only had ninety dollars when they arrived, Andrew found work fairly soon. Their first home was a unit in Booragoon which they rented for seventy dollars a week. Magucha wanted a clean place because of Carolina’s injuries. Noalimba lent them all the furniture they needed until their furniture eventually arrived from Africa.

After learning to drive, Magucha found a period of employment at Mount Lawley College. Jocelyn Vieira, a teacher of Portuguese, employed Magucha both for her administrative skills and as an assistant teacher. Unfortunately that language program was closed and Magucha took work at the “Trots” in town, in a restaurant washing dishes. Later she was employed at Fremantle Hospital were she helped to cook food and serve it to the patients. This was good job – she worked part time, five hours a day and earned six hundred dollars a fortnight. She had holidays and the conditions were good. She stayed for ten years.

“My professional life was never the same. Life changed completely. But I have helped many people and done other things. I’ve helped to teach Portuguese, I’ve helped at the Fremantle Women’s Health Centre. Now I am a volunteer – part of the work I do is paid and the other part is not. I’ve helped many Portuguese people with the doctors and so on.”

In 1990 Magucha returned to Portugal for holidays. While there she realized how Australian she had become. While she liked Portugal she realized she did not live in the same manner. She did not have the same “saudades” (longing for Portugal) that her parents have. As she says, “Of course I like eating Portuguese food, I like being around Portuguese people, eat chourico and those things. But if I don’t have them I am not going to die. That is, I am well adapted. I don’t feel the same anguish as my parent’s do … They are going to return to Portugal, because they really feel the anguish of not being amongst Portuguese people, of not speaking Portuguese, of not having the history close by, of living the life of Lisbon which they like and want … My life s here. My children are Australian.”

                                                -------//////------

*NB: I am not a Scot! Never been there. My grandfather was a medical doctor, born in Glasgow. 

Why aren't we outraged?

I will not post the whole of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – even though it is just two pages in length. It is easy enough to find on line. 

But I intend, in what follows, to highlight the egregious, even contemptuous disregard of this vital document by some nations – even the fact that the USA, for some unfathomable reason, has not agreed to implement all thirty articles. China and Saudi Arabia are amongst the worst offenders – as is Israel.

We should all be outraged at the failure of many nations to hold by the Articles of this Document that they have signed.

Read on:- 

Article 1:- All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

NB. Australia, USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, China ….. Take note.

Article 3:- Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

NB. Australia, USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, China …. Take note.

Article 5:- No one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

NB. Australia, USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, China …. Take note.

Article 9:- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

NB. Australia, USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, China …. Take note.

Article 11 (1):- Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. 

NB. Australia, USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, China…. Take note.

Article 17 (1):- Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

Article 17 (2):- No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

NB. Israel especially take note, in relation to their treatment of the Palestinians.

Article 23 (2):- Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

NB. Australia (and I’m sure many other countries) …. Take note.

Article 25 (1):- Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

NB. Australia, USA and I’m sure many other countries …. Take note.

Article 26 (1):- Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages …

NB. Australia …. Take note.

Article 30:- Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person and right to engage in any activity or to perform and act aimed at the destruction of any rights and freedoms set forth herein.

NB. All nations …. Take note.

The Catholic Church and its Moral Authority.

I ask the question – a valid question – where is God? Is God “up there”, here, everywhere? If, as I suspect, God is everywhere why is it then claimed that a priest is a required “intermediary” through which a believer can “talk” to God.

If God is everywhere is a priest really necessary?

This brings me to comment on the truly appalling, even horrifying revelations in the 2017 Report by the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The Catholic Church, while certainly not the only one, has the worst record of any institution mentioned. The Catholic Church, through its Archbishops in Australia, has stated, in answer to recommendations in the Royal Commission Report, that any change to the requirement for priests to be celibate, and changes to the confessional will not be considered.

My questions then are:-

Why is “celibacy” so important to the Catholic hierarchy?

Also, why is the Confessional so “sacrosanct”?

And why is it that “Canon Law” cannot be challenged or altered?

Celibacy:

The Church, as I understand it, considers clerical celibacy to be not a doctrine, but a discipline. 

There has never been any doubt, however, that it is an ecclesiastical discipline, as Pope John Paul II said at a public audience on 17 July 1993, that celibacy "does not belong to the essence of priesthood.” He went on to speak, nevertheless, of its aptness for the requirements of sacred orders, asserting that the discipline "enters into the logic of (priestly) consecration."

Because the rule of celibacy is an ecclesiastical discipline and not a doctrine, it can, in principle be changed at any time by the Pope. Nonetheless, the current Pope, Pope Francis, and his predecessors have spoken clearly of their understanding that the traditional practice was not likely to change.

Throughout the early centuries of Christianity, let it be known, clergy continued to get married, though marriage was not required. It was not until the turn of the first millennium that the church started to canonically regulate clerical marriage, mainly in response to clerical abuses and corruption. It was of particular concern that at the death of a clergyman, his wife and children would inherit church property. The Council of Pavia (1018), for example, issued regulations on how to deal with children of clergy, declaring them serfs of the church, unable to be ordained and barring them from inheriting their father's “benefices” (income connected to a church office or parish).

So, it can be seen that celibacy has nothing to do with God (at least no more so that any other human activity) but a lot more to do with mercenary and ecclesiastical considerations – the wealth and authority of the Catholic Church.

Confessional:

Again, as I understand it, this requirement was originally imposed in the Middle Ages, at least in part, by church leaders who expected priests to interrogate penitents and learn if they might be heretics.

Confession and the authority to grant absolution also greatly enhanced the power of the priest. With sins absolved, the believer would gain heaven. Without absolution, death could bring the spiritual pain of purgatory or the eternal damnation of hell.

It would appear that from the very beginnings of the confessional, practices varied widely among both priests and laypeople. Some clergy emphasized compassion and forgiveness and faithfully kept secret what they heard. Others exploited their power and the information captured during the sacrament. The 11th-century monk Peter Damian (1007 – 1072) famously excoriated clerics for the sexual abuse of minors, which often began with the penitent-confessor relationship. In the later Middle Ages, apparently criminality among confessors was widespread and entrenched. Much of the criminality involved sexual assaults and priestly transgressions against the church's sexual mores (adopted as a rule or canon).

So, again, there is nothing “sacred” about the confessional – quite the reverse. At best a priest should be acting only as a counselor for a troubled parishioner.

Canon Law:

I offer the following (adapted from Wikipedia):- “The canon law of the Catholic Church is the system of laws and legal principles made and enforced by the hierarchical authorities of the Church to regulate its external organization and government and to order and direct the activities of Catholics toward the mission of the Church.

What began with rules ("canons") adopted by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem (held about 50 AD) has developed into a highly complex legal system incorporating not just elements of the New Testament, but some of the Hebrew (Old Testament) Roman, Visigothic, Saxon and Celtic legal traditions.

It is the internal ecclesiastical law, or operational policy, governing the Catholic Church and other churches. Canon law wasn't just a body of rules and regulations governing members of the church, but rather an elaborate code of ethics shaping family life and marriage. Due to this, it was able to manipulate the fundamental operations of family life within the areas that it oversaw. The Catholic Church (and other churches), have manipulated the basis and validity of marriage, the ability to end a marriage as well as remarriage abilities, and the norms for sexual behaviour. The way that such church laws are legislated, interpreted and at times adjudicated varies widely. In all these traditions, a canon was originally a rule adopted by a church council; these canons formed the foundation of canon law.”

So you see, again, there is nothing really “God like” or sacred in these canons (laws) – at least no more so that in the Common Law of Australia. A canon law cannot, ever, take precedence over the Laws of Australia. Otherwise should we now allow “laws” that apply to Scientology, to Islam, the Hindu or any other faith to also take precedence?

The Catholic Church has no claim to any “moral authority” while it hides behind these so called inviolable “laws of the Church”. They are nothing of the sort.

So I ask again, where is God? Is God “up there”, here, or everywhere?  

It’s not the Economy, stupid – it’s people!

Homelessness in any society is a measure of its Moral Compass and Social Conscience. In Australia, where I live, the latest figures provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in 2011, record that there were 105 237 homeless people (49 out of every 10 000 people in the country). In the Northern Territory this reaches the staggering figure of 700 in every 10 000! This astonishing number reflects the very poor status of the Original People of Australia - the Aboriginal. We should hang our heads in shame.

In the USA – the wealthiest country in the world – on any night in January 2013 the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported there were 610 042 homeless people (19 out of every 10 000 people in the country). According to the Walking Shield website that caters for Native Americans there were 90 000 Native American families that were homeless - using the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 2003 figures. This is now 2014 and, with respect, I suggest that there will not have been much improvement since 2003.

These figures – statistics – are an appalling indictment of the way current economic theory and capitalism are disconnected from “real” life.

Everyone is worried about the “economy” but they forget or ignore the fact that the “economy” would not exist without people. People ARE the economy. Look after people – pay them a liveable wage – and the economy will prosper. The low paid will have more money to spend after the essentials have been catered for. This is both the ethical and the morally correct thing to do.

The “multiplier effect” is, I understand, something like 1.5 – for every $1 in increased basic wage (for the low paid) there is a $1.50 benefit for the “economy”; increased spending power, increased taxes for governments, reduced requirement for social security benefits and generally better health and well-being for the recipients. This is the “churn” effect that money has - what goes around comes around and then some!

I remind my one loyal reader that over one hundred years ago Henry Ford said that every worker should be paid enough to buy what he makes!

It is not the “economy”, stupid – it is people!!

Modern Democracies – WHY VOTE?

It is good to have my feelings about politicians supported by an august journal such as the New York Times - I thought my one loyal reader might be interested in the following quote from the NYT:- 
 
"The Worst Voter Turnout in 72 Years

 Turnout this month was the lowest in any federal election since 1942.

Showing up at the polls is the best way to counter the oversized influence of wealthy special interests, who dominate politics as never before. But to encourage participation, politicians need to stop suppressing the vote, make the process of voting as easy as possible, and run campaigns that stand for something.

Over all, the national turnout was 36.3 percent; only the 1942 federal election had a lower participation rate at 33.9 percent. The reasons are apathy, anger and frustration at the relentlessly negative tone of the campaigns.

During the same period, negative campaigning has become ubiquitous in the United States and elsewhere and has been shown to impact voter turnout. Attack ads and smear campaigns give voters a negative impression of the entire political process.”

The sentiments expressed above fit very well with my thoughts and feelings regarding the 2013 Australian General Election. The only difference is that in Australia there is that odd “democratic” law that voting is compulsory (and people are fined for NOT voting). But informal votes – “invalid” votes - have increased from 2.1% in 1983 to 5.9% in 2013 (approx. 940 000 voters out of a total of approx. 15.9 million on the electoral roll).

The NYT editorial’s comments about running campaigns that mean something and voters “apathy, anger and frustration at the relentlessly negative campaigns” certainly resonates with me. Even with Australia’s “compulsory democracy” the actual voter turnout for the 2013 election was only about 81% and even lower if the 1 million odd Australians living overseas who did not bother to vote (or were not even on the electoral roll) are taken into account.

As in the USA there has to be a reason for this low turnout and I suggest that “disenchantment” with politicians is the prime cause – lack of trust and because politicians lie. They say one thing (“read my lips”) before an election but then promptly ignore this and do something which was not voted for.

Politicians need to treat voters as human beings with hopes and aspirations and not merely as an inconvenient, if necessary, means to get elected and politicians need to give voters something relevant to actually vote for - then see the voter engagement improve!!