I’ve seen the sub 2% figure quoted in newspaper articles, I don’t have a direct cite for it but it seems reasonable to me.
Look up the numbers yourself; it’s indisputable that convicts were outnumbered by free settlers by 1800, and that gold-rush era immigrants greatly outnumbered earlier settlers (and convicts) very quickly. Add to that the fact that post-WW2 immigration more than doubled Australia’s population again in the 20th century, and you’ll start to see that there is simply no way that any more than a small fraction of Australians have genuine convict ancestry.
Now, there are plenty of families that claim convict ancestry, but in terms of fully documented descent from a convict ancestor, I’ve known precisely two people. That’s less than the one-in-fifty that the 2% figure would indicate. No doubt there have been others, but I see no reason to believe anyone’s family claim to convict ancestry deserves any more belief than the number of Americans that claim to be descended from native “princesses”.
Thomas Keneally’s A Commonwealth of Thieves: The Improbable Birth of Australia. Read it. it’s very good. I’ve read a lot more than that about colonial Australian history, but it’s a good start and provides a good overview of the subject matter.
I think you’re being a bit harsh. If you only have met 2 people with a documented descent from a convict ancestor it doesn’t support 2% at all. You may only know 4 people- or you could live on Thursday island where the majority of people are islanders.
If you’re having a dig at me about claims rather than proof of a convict ancestry you are sadly off the mark. It was all researched professionally and with Ancestry.com it isn’t difficult to trace your heritage at all.
I’m a popular guy who has met a great many people over the years, you have my word on that. I don’t give a damn about whether your convict ancestry is documented or not. My point was and is that unless any particular family claim is documented, I see no reason to believe it.
Now, before this goes any further, here’s some well-documented numbers for you: around a quarter of Australia’s current population was born overseas. Australia’s population has more than doubled since 1945. So, there you go, that’s already ruled out more than 50% of Australia’s population from any hint of convict ancestry.
Convicts were outnumbered by free settlers before 1800. Australia’s population tripled in the first decade of the first gold rush, the 1850s. Go and look these numbers up if you don’t believe me, start here: Demographics of Australia - Wikipedia
It looks to me like your entire argument with what I’ve written here is that you don’t think it sounds right. I recommend that you do some fact checking and then come back and tell me if you’ve found any real errors in what I have written.
Over here in the US, 1/4 of my ancestry immigrated to the US in the 20th century, but I am also a descendant of a passenger on the Mayflower. Recent immigrants don’t just marry other recent immigrants and children of recent immigrants.
I, too, find the 2% figure to be ludicrously low. Most people won’t be primarily descended from convicts, and maybe convicts only make up 2% of peoples’ total ancestry on average, but almost everyone is going to have at least one ancestor who was one of those convicts.
I’m a member of the Fellowship of First Fleeters and you have to give them original or certified copies of birth, marriage and death certificates. I have two FF ancestors (only one a convict) but also have another convict in my ancestry who was transported sometime in the 1830s.
Clearly, with post-war immigration in particular, the percentage of Australians claiming convict ancestry will be decreasing but I’d still be surprised if it was as low a 2%.
I don’t know what the figure is, but I do think Shakester makes a good point here. It became fashionable in the 1970s to claim - indeed boast of - convict ancestry. Since then it’s become far more common to hear people talk of their convict connection in general conversation. Whenever I’ve asked about the genealogical research that has been done, documentation etc (“Which ship was he/she on?”), there’s always a pause and a mumbled reference to “family folklore”. Even my own mother does it, and I know quite certainly that nobody in my family has ever done the necessary research to establish the claim.
Edited: I’ve just noted **jabiru’s **comment. I know that many who claim convict ancestry can prove it. But I suspect many others can’t.
Australia, like the United States, is a country whose population has been, well into the twentieth and twenty-first century, dramatically affected by ongoing immigration.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as of 2010 over one-quarter of Australia’s population was born overseas. That is, out of about 22.5 million people living in Australia, just under 6 million weren’t even born there. We can strike those people from the list of folks with transported convict ancestry straight away.
There are also plenty of people in Australia whose parents or grandparents were immigrants, and who stand a pretty decent chance of not having convict ancestry.
If anyone has the time, there is a good paper here by the School of Political Science and International Studies at the University of St. Lucia.
It supports a far higher percentage than 2- and in Tasmania, as many as 50% of people could claim convict ancestry due to the numbers shipped there. Even if that is out by half it is still a large percentage.
Some people make a big deal about (present day) Australians being ‘descended from convicts!’ To wit, one American guy who I was opposed with in litigation, said to me casually during a round-table meeting with clients “So, aren’t all Australians descended from convicts?”
The answer is: no. If ‘convicts’ means people who were transported there as convicted criminals by GB.
But, I ask you, all of you who are here reading this on the SDMB, who among you can prove that they are not descended from anyone who has been convicted of a crime? Think about it, and get back to me.
UM no, My grandam was born overseas but my grandpa has convicts in his line, my mum was born overseas but my dad has convicts in his line, my wife is born overseas but our kids by default have convicts in the line. A great thing about Australia is the amount of people who marry outside their race [wrong word but you know what I mean]. So based on that I know at least 300 people who have convicts in their line but have many instances of fresh DNA from overseas in the mix.
So 2% seems not to pass the sniff test but it would interesting to see what the actual number is, but I assume this would cost too much for no real outcome.
On the matter of whether we were founded by convicts as opposed to jailors, I understand the argument but you cannot bring in poor marginalized people into a country and not expect it to colour the culture.
That’s right, your personal experience completely refutes my suggestion that there might be non-immigrants who still only have more recent immigrants in their background. :rolleyes:
I know a few people, for example, who were born in Australia, but who can trace both sides of their family directly back to inter-war or post-war migrants, with no convict or even colonial ancestors. Does my personal anecdote trump your personal anecdote?
Precisely. I have not once defended the 2 percent claim. But the fact that the 2 percent claim is probably low doesn’t mean that there aren’t still considerable numbers of Australians, even people born in the country, who have no convict heritage.
