I'd say false. Wrong premise. The outback is nothing like the 'wild west'- the romantic notion of 'taming the wilderness' just does not apply in this case. It is still very isolated and extremely dangerous, and for the most part unsettled and unpopulated. As for it being our 'middle ages'- I think it is more prehistoric in nature, especially if you take Aboriginal culture and the 'dreamtime' into consideration. It represents a far older civilisation than the Middle Ages. My ten cents worth as an Aussie :)
I assume you meant: "The Outback is to non-aboriginal Australia..." etc.
Physically? Mostly false although any physical challenges to survival have some similarities.
Psychologically? Again mostly false imo (but I'm a Brit so what would I know) although again I'm sure there are some similarities to be found by anyone who wants to make a comparison.
I'd go with False. I believe the Outback exists today, it's a location. I think of it more along the lines of a Rainforest or an Oasis in a dessert, it still very much exists.
False, just because to me at least, you're trying to compare a geographic space with two different time periods, one of which was relatively short (the wild west).
False. By pure logic - The outback is a geographical area to Australia so logically we must take the Wild West to be a geographical area. The middle are not the same thing to Europe as there is no specific geographical area attatched to them.
What the wild west is to the US the Middle ages is to Europe could be a statement you could count as true.
Both can be considered time period. Outback and wild west can be considered to refer to a place - if not an exact geographical location (the wrong choice of words perhaps) and Wild west and Middle ages both refer to time periods. The statements don't have to be internally true as the question asks if a is to b as c is to d. You could say What man is to woman cat is to dog and it would be logically true.
I'm sorry I didn't phrase my initial question more clearly. You're right if you are comparing the "real thing" (for want of a better word); I was trying to compare the concepts. Different kind of logic. ;)
I wouldn't term it a geographical 'area' either really unless you're just referring to desert regions, which exist in a multitude of places. I guess if you look at it dispassionately, any area outside the coastal urban fringe could be termed 'outback' but that's not correct either. The 'concept' of the outback is more a 'myth'- the idealised 'philosophical jackaroo' surviving drought and flood, but the image of the 'suntanned Aussie' has long passed- it's how those outside of Australia like to imagine us.
That's what I meant, yes - the concept, the myth behind the term. I keep seeing "outback" and "bush" referred to in books about Australian literature, but it's used as shorthand for something I have no cultural knowledge of. Which is annoying. Hence my question. :)
It is a 'myth' and therefore can be used as such to represent that particular idealised image of Australia. I didn't mean it wasn't still used- it certainly is- but I think writers are also catering to their perceived audience as well. It can be used as a symbol- of the vastness, of the supposed 'freedom' and space. The 'bush' on the other hand is perhaps less esoteric- it can refer to any area outside the larger cities- even a regional city- as well as a more isolated area.
The Wild West had, first of all, people trying to make a living for themselves, generally at the expense of others. Even though the Wild West was pretty bad, the fact that mining (gold, silver etc) at least allowed for some money to be made, which would in turn allow for luxuries and necessities (hotels, gold, "women" if you know what I mean etc) to be imported.
The Outback, on the other hand, was inhospitable, but had none of these: Australia's a pretty barren and inhospitable place and although we're one of the largest exporters of coal and uranium (and to a lesser extent steel, iron, wheat etc), most of that is in the south/south east and western coasts. The Outback is generally defined as being central and northern areas, which is pretty literally all desert.
The American Indians at first glance are pretty similar to the Australian Aborigines. However, the difference is, the Indians were living as tribes who would also sometimes compete for resources, even going to war with one another, whereas the Aborigines believed they all descended from the same group and are all family.
Thus in the Wild West, if you'll excuse the poor joke, the natives are restless and had the will to fight; while in the Outback, they happily lived on the land and shared with no disagreement.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
Physically? Mostly false although any physical challenges to survival have some similarities.
Psychologically? Again mostly false imo (but I'm a Brit so what would I know) although again I'm sure there are some similarities to be found by anyone who wants to make a comparison.
no subject
I'm looking for the psychological parallels - but it seems I've been looking in the wrong direction! :)
no subject
I believe the Outback exists today, it's a location. I think of it more along the lines of a Rainforest or an Oasis in a dessert, it still very much exists.
no subject
no subject
What the wild west is to the US the Middle ages is to Europe could be a statement you could count as true.
no subject
no subject
In what respect? This seems as false as the Outback=Wild West equation to me.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
If this idealized image has by now turned into an outsider's cliché, how do I deal with it turning up in recent literature?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The Wild West had, first of all, people trying to make a living for themselves, generally at the expense of others. Even though the Wild West was pretty bad, the fact that mining (gold, silver etc) at least allowed for some money to be made, which would in turn allow for luxuries and necessities (hotels, gold, "women" if you know what I mean etc) to be imported.
The Outback, on the other hand, was inhospitable, but had none of these: Australia's a pretty barren and inhospitable place and although we're one of the largest exporters of coal and uranium (and to a lesser extent steel, iron, wheat etc), most of that is in the south/south east and western coasts. The Outback is generally defined as being central and northern areas, which is pretty literally all desert.
The American Indians at first glance are pretty similar to the Australian Aborigines. However, the difference is, the Indians were living as tribes who would also sometimes compete for resources, even going to war with one another, whereas the Aborigines believed they all descended from the same group and are all family.
Thus in the Wild West, if you'll excuse the poor joke, the natives are restless and had the will to fight; while in the Outback, they happily lived on the land and shared with no disagreement.