Annual Two-Day Seminar

Australasia and Postcolonial studies groups
Thursday 12 and Friday 13 October 2006

Proposals for papers of 20 minutes on either theme must be sent to Pr Martine Piquet , director of CICLaS  martine.piquet@free.fr , or Dr Deirdre Gilfedder doylgilf@noos.fr (Australasian studies group), or Pr Cynthia Carey cynthia.carey@wanadoo.fr (Postcolonial studies group) by 30 April 2006. Abstracts need to be 200-250 words and accompanied by a bio sketch of 100-150 words.

Thursday 12 October
AMERICANISATION, ASIANISATION OR 'PACIFIC-ISATION' OF AUSTRALASIA

Australia and New Zealand , the once distant appendices of the British Empire in the southern hemisphere, are often described today as Americanised western enclaves in the Asia-Pacific region. How true is this claim? What is meant by 'Americanisation' in this instance? If, as Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating once pointed out, they are not part of Asia , how close are they today to their southeast Asian neighbours economically, politically, and culturally? What sort of relations do they have with the island states of the South Pacific? What influence has migration from the Asia-Pacific region and reconciliation with indigenous people had on culture and national identity? Have Australia and New Zealand developed authentic, new political and cultural trends through reconciling their historical roots and geographical position, or are they just indistinct members of the Anglosphere and the United States ' mere 'deputy sheriffs' in the region? What are the differences between Australia and New Zealand in this respect?

Friday 13 October
RECONCILIATION IN PERSPECTIVE

As illustrated by the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa in 1993, which undoubtedly helped to avoid a blood-bath, the idea of reconciliation became a central political issue in certain post-colonial societies at the end of the twentieth century. In order to construct a national identity, the crimes of the past had first to be de-constructed through a public and collective confession before the past could be integrated into the present and included in any new future configurations. The role of national memory became crucial in the transition towards the new political realities.

With hindsight, how do we assess these policies today? What form did and do these policies take? How can we compare them on the international level? Has the policy of reconciliation had a positive, negative or zero impact in personal, national and international terms on the societies involved? What means can we use to assess success and failures?