I understand you want this to be true, and in the very early days maybe as it would be rough conditions, but I'd have to see data before believing.Yeah, anyone coming later via immigration, was a different matter. The truth is, most of the original convicts died out without procreating.
I understand you want this to be true, and in the very early days maybe as it would be rough conditions, but I'd have to see data before believing.
Wikipedia says 20% of Australians are descended from convicts. Their link is rotten, but this seems to have basically been it (2012).Sure, feel free to go looking for the data. It was estimated in 2000, that between 5-10% of the population were descended from the original settlers, including the jailers/government officials/free people that came down here initially to work and convicts.
The Australian population has increased by a third since then, nearly entirely via migration, as we're not even close to maintaining our population via good old fashioned fucking(just like all other advanced nations). You can probably do the math.
I remember having this conversation previously, followed up that 20% figure. It came from an estimate from one person, with no evidence at all to back it up. People tore it apart and laughed at it as ridiculous, even back then.Wikipedia says 20% of Australians are descended from convicts. Their link is rotten, but this seems to have basically been it (2012).
![]()
Australia’s penal colony roots
It was once a point of shame that Australia was settled by convicts, but today, locals are embracing their crime-ridden past.www.bbc.com
'Descended from convicts' could mean one of your ancestors, all of them, or some proportion of them were convicts though.
@Contempt is obviously not going to respond rationally on this topic (it's the respond with cock-and-bull stories until the other person gives up behaviour mentioned in my other thread), but for the benefit of others it seems primarily they analysed the relevant documents in the (UK) National Archives to get the estimate.I remember having this conversation previously, followed up that 20% figure. It came from an estimate from one person, with no evidence at all to back it up. People tore it apart and laughed at it as ridiculous, even back then.
So, not agreeing with you and asking for some kind of credible evidence to back up a ridiculous number that makes zero sense, is what constitutes "not posting rationally" these days.@Contempt is obviously not going to respond rationally on this topic (it's the respond with cock-and-bull stories until the other person gives up behaviour mentioned in my other thread), but for the benefit of others it seems primarily they analysed the relevant documents in the (UK) National Archives to get the estimate.
Supposedly there were 19 transportable offences.
![]()

Christmas only starts when it's the 25th in Britain, old boy. Former Colonies don't count.![]()
Thanks for the informative discussion! I feel we've both had a chance to make our points and I don't have a lot more to say on the matter just now. Hope you enjoy the Boxing Day test!So, not agreeing with you and asking for some kind of credible evidence to back up a ridiculous number that makes zero sense, is what constitutes "not posting rationally" these days.
OK sherbro
You somehow believe that stating there were 19 transportable offences, constitutes as a statistical, societal analysis? What does that have to do with the breakdown of modern Australian society or the lineage of people that were here over 200 years ago?
How drunk are you dude?
International time is measured from which city?
Well no, not unless you can provide some actual evidence to back up your stated position... Short of that it seems somewhat pointless, to continue.Thanks for the informative discussion! I feel we've both had a chance to make our points and I don't have a lot more to say on the matter just now. Hope you enjoy the Boxing Day test!![]()