Comment by Greg Adler

May 21, 2008 @ 9:16 pm

An interesting article Tom. But I think the conclusions drawn as to support of cross-dressing and anti-clericalism have a fairly thin basis if this report is all there is of the matter( do you know where its from by the way,)

It is interesting that the sailors were able to organise “spontaneously” to attempt to effect the release of their comrades.

I’d want to know more about the circumstances before I would accept that the only explanation for the reaction of support for the man in woman’s clothing and the disruption of aa church service can be taken as support for cross-dressing and anti-clericalism. Still a different view of colonial history from that I learned at school.

Greg Adler

Comment by DavidG.

May 22, 2008 @ 12:30 pm

Mind you, if all activities of religious institutions were to be constantly interrupted by citizens concerned about indoctrination AND all members of the Armed Forces, Police, Navy, etc, were to wear full length women’s dresses and lipstick, I’m sure the world would quickly become a much better place to live in!

Comment by thanhhuong

May 22, 2008 @ 4:28 pm

“I’d want to know more about the circumstances before I would accept that the only explanation for the reaction of support for the man in woman’s clothing and the disruption of aa church service can be taken as support for cross-dressing and anti-clericalism”

Fair enough. However there is a difference between support and tolerance, and perhaps the latter is the major point.

I couldn’t but but wonder as I read the link about Peter Carey’s “A History of the Kelly Gang” in which Ned’s dad was described as straddling a stallion rushing through the eucalypts on a Sunday morn in a red dress, whether that tale has any truth and if so is there a pattern forming here.

BTW: My old nameless history professor from a nameless university in Victoria had a pet unreleased thesis about white Australia been built upon uncontrolled homosexual activity and the later tendency of the Anglo – Celtic in Australia to be macho was simply a denial of (what they thought) was a sordid sodomitic past. It is analogous to Carey’s theory that Ned’s adult life was profoundly affected by his father’s apparel.

Comment by Tom O\\Lincoln

May 28, 2008 @ 12:09 pm

I think all it really shows is that attitudes in the past were more diverse than we sometimes think, and that convention could be challenged. But that’s important.

• Melbourne events
• Sydney events