thought / question

[tysolna]

The Outback is to Australia what the Wild West is to the US, and what the Middle Ages are to Europe.
True or false?

Comments

[nugirlontheblok.livejournal.com]

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 :)

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

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.

[britishamerican.livejournal.com]

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.

[idahoswede.livejournal.com]

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).

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

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.

[fangedsekhmet.livejournal.com]

Nah, s'just the bush.

[queuedub.livejournal.com]

False.

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.