Frontier or History Wars

What was it about the nature of frontier conflict that led historians to overlook it for so long? Why is it difficult to assess the nature and extent of Aboriginal resistance?

The History of the Colonial Frontier is an issue that has sparked heated debate between historians, social commentators, journalists and politicians. Historians have argued over the extent of the violence, in terms of whether or not it was simple legitimate use of force, necessary within colonisation, or rather that it was a ‘war’ that included massacres of Aboriginal people and their culture. In terms of the latter opinion, the word genocide has even been used to describe the systematic abolishment of Aboriginal people and culture that continued on into the 20^th century, and in some opinions, even still today. Stanner describes how not acknowledging Indigenous people in history could have begun as the simple action of ‘forgetting’, which escalated over a time into “something like a cult of forgetfulness practised on a national scale.” Stanner also talks of the “great Australian silence about the relationship between ourselves and the Aborigines”, resulting in a commonly accepted National History. Reasons for this ‘great silence’ could include many things, from a lack of evidence, particularly Aboriginal oral sources which are not accepted by western standards, to a lack of want to ‘remember’ what could be seen as a morbid and condemning past. Obviously it is a difficult task to look at ones history and see morbid claims of massacres and substantial and intentional killing of people and culture, however, in order to move forward as a society it is necessary to look at both negative and positive sides of history and take responsibility for the past. Henry Reynolds debates these issues with Keith Windschuttle through an ABC broadcast in 2001. Windschuttle accuses historians of falsifying evidence and exaggerating claims to do with Aboriginal deaths on the frontier, stating, “What the historians have done is taken everything they say at face value and have reproduced it. If somebody says eight Aborigines killed here, the historians say, ‘just add 8 more to the toll”. Reynolds accuses Windschuttle of being in denial about frontier killings and says that “he is acting as a defence counsel for the settlers and the Government.” Windschuttle throughout this debate comes across as being in complete denial about obvious nature of the frontier, representing opinions of many people within Australian history, but also opinion of today. It is interesting that Windschuttle (and others) will still question so profusely the work of someone like Reynolds who has been in the field for so long and has done as much extensive work as he has done.

 

What are the reasons why the Australian War Memorial does not include frontier conflict and violence within its galleries and is there a place for these stories?

The Australian War Memorial is designed to commemorate the Australians that have been on active service in wars and war-like operations, including peacekeeping. FNR deputy director of the Australian War Memorial, Michael McKernan describes the memorial as a “special place for Australians because it tells of grief and it tells of sadness, it tells of achievement, it tells of bravery and sacrifice.” Surely the story of thousands of Aboriginal Australians who lost their lives trying to protect their culture and families is indeed about sacrifice and bravery? However, these frontier wars are instead not acknowledged at all in the Australian War Memorial. John Howard says that legally, the state of ‘war’ didn’t exist, however, General John Coates describes the frontier conflicts as a “brutal, bloody and sustained confrontation that took place on every significant piece of land across the continent.” Certainly that description is most definitely ‘war’ or at least a ‘war like operation’. The President of the Returned Services League, Bill Crews describes the violence on the frontier as ‘skirmishes’ that surely occur with colonisation, and therefore shouldn’t be included in the Memorial as, in his opinion, the Memorial is to commemorate the “sacrifice of Australians on behalf of Australians.” But who could possibly be more ‘Australian’ than Australia’s original occupants? It is interesting how much society honours the sacrifices of the soldiers of the first and second world wars, with ANZAC day being one of Australia’s most important annual national occasions. Yet, other significant Australian sacrifices are completely overlooked. I believe there is definitely a place for the frontier wars within the War Memorial. Acknowledgement of the frontier wars will allow this country to mature and grow with its Indigenous population, rather than continue with this ‘silence’. 

This picture depicts mounted police attacking Indigenous Australians during the Slaughterhouse Creek Massacre of 1838. Unknown Artist. Picture found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars

Europeans and the Australian Environment

 

“An' half our bullicks perished when the drought was on the land,

An' the burnin' heat that dazzles as it dances on the sand;

When the sun-baked clay an' gravel paves for miles the burnin' creeks,

An' at ev'ry step yer travel there a rottin' carcase reeks…”

(from The Song of Old Joe Swallow, Henry Lawson).

In what ways does the Sydney Herald editorial link the identity of native-born white Australians and the land? 

The Article form the Sydney Herald ‘Sworn to no master, of no sect am I’ provides an interesting insight into the way the British Empire within Australia viewed itself and it’s national interests. It provides a glorified view of ‘British Freedom’ and emphasises the importance of ‘the youth of the colony’ in the conquest of land. The editorial links native-born youth (white) as being almost a superior race, especially due to their knowledge of country and land that previous generations of colonisers didn’t have. This is due to the fact that they have been born straight into the ‘harsh’ landscape of Australia, with the editorial highlighting the ‘pleasure’ of being able to give them land in order to further the market for British manufactures. For example, the editorial states that “one section of land to a young colonist, with a run for his cattle, will, in twenty years, be of more value to the Mother Country than a fifty gun frigate.”

 

How does W.C. Wentworth describe Australia? 

The poem written by Wentworth titled ‘Australasia’ (1823) paints a vivid picture of the new nation of Australia. The first few lines describe Australia as “Earth’s furthest habitable shores”, painting a picture of a place as far away as “the Arctic night”. He then goes on to describe it as almost being a ‘better’ more ‘noble’ place and also portrays the environmental harshness and savageness of country using words such as ‘primeval’. The end of the poem makes many references to the mother country, almost portraying Britain as the parent of an unruly, yet charming child (Australia). The last line sums up the poem beautifully saying ‘And Australasia float, with flag unfurl’d, a new Britannia in another world’, emphasising the truly empirical nature of the conquest of Australia.

Are these primary sources expressing a distinctive ‘Australian’ out look by early settlers, or are they shaped by other factors?

Primary sources such as the Sydney Herald Editorial and W.C. Wentworth’s ‘Australasia’ provide great insight into the way settlers viewed the nation at this early point in Australia’s colonial history. I believe that these sources are beginning to express a distinctive ‘Australian’ outlook, however, they are obviously still highly influenced by Britain, especially since Australia is completely under British rule and government at this point. The beginnings of a national ‘voice’ and national ideas of what is ‘Australia’ are beginning to become evident, with quite a lot of pride of Australia being expressed throughout both the sources. However, both the sources are providing the basis of what is to become the ‘Pioneer Legend’ history of Australia, which has been seen by many historians as being quite narrow minded and exclusive.  

 

Family standing on their property in the Queensland outback, ca. 1875

Photographer William Boag - Photo found at www.pictureaustralia.org

Convict Lives

Were convicts members of a ‘criminal class’? What evidence do those who consider convicts ‘professional criminals’ draw upon? 

It is difficult to accurately assess the validity of whether or not Australia’s convicts were mostly members of a professional criminal class or instead casual or one off offenders. Manning Clark is of this opinion that this criminal class exists, however many other historians tend to lean towards the idea that rather than being criminals, convicts were instead the victims, being the subjects of social, economic and environmental factors. In terms of evidence to support Clark’s claim, there are two aspects that need to be looked at. The first is to look at whether or not the transported convicts had any previous criminal convictions, however, these records are held by the British House of Commons are too ambiguous to make any claims. The second way of proving that this ‘criminal class’ existed is by common knowledge and opinion from the time, with the results mostly concurring on the fact that the “criminals are one section of the working class for whom crime is an occupation.” Another form of evidence drawn upon is the witness of social commentator Henry Mayhew. Mayhew through many reports, personal experience and investigation, comes to the conclusion that yes, indeed there was a majority criminal class. However, there is not an abundance of evidence available from the time, in order to make a conclusion as to the convicts of Australia’s origin. It's interesting to look at the records of convicts in terms of their age, sex, crime etc. These records make it easy to sympathise with the convicts on some level, due to most of the recorded crimes being of such a ‘trivial’ nature within the standards of modern day society. For example, with the majority of the crimes being theft of some description, with very little being more serious crimes of manslaughter or murder. 

Convicts at work in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Picture found at: http://www.warrenfahey.com/oz-trad-music2.htm by Unknown Artist

 

Outpost of Empire

What are the competing arguments about the foundations of Australia?

 

It is commonly thought that Australia was colonised for sole purpose of solving England’s overflowing prison system. As America was no longer an option for transportation due to the revolution, and executions were fewer, a solution was needed. James Cook suggested Botany Bay as a suitable location for a settlement, as it could also soon be self-sufficient. Lord Sydney describes the establishment of a colony in New South Wales as “particularly adapted to answer the views of Government with respect to the providing a remedy for the evils likely to result from the late alarming and numerous increase of felons in this country.” However, that Australia was colonized purely as a British gaol is an idea that is commonly accepted within society. The big question is, why choose somewhere so incredibly far away? This is the question that has been debated throughout Australian History, and is discussed in Geoffrey Blainey’s book, ‘The Tyranny of Distance.’ Blainey discusses the sheer cost of the expedition as being great deal larger than sending convicts to alternate destinations in the northern hemisphere, for example Canada or to the West Indies. Furthermore, Captain Arthur Phillips thought that no other country “could be more disadvantageously placed with respect to support from the mother country.” Mr K. M. Dallas suggests that one reason that Australia was chosen was due to the fact that England needed a new sea base and port in order to strengthen their commercial empire and be a port of call for many different trades routes. Another suggestion was that Australia was chosen for nearby Norfolk Islands Flax Plant supplies (used for canvas and sails), which grew in excess compared to supplies in Europe. Blainey comments that “in that era Britain’s military strength and an increasing part of her commerce relied on seapower, and flax and ships’ timber were as vital to seapower as steel and oil are today.” I believe that it was a number of different reasons that Australia was chosen for a British settlement, and not purely due to an overcrowding of goals, however, this was definitely a large factor in the matter.

 The Cover of Geoffrey Blainey's Book, The Tyranny of Distance, 1966
Image found at www.google.com.au/images search: The Tyranny of Distance

Australia and the Enlightenment

According to Manning Clark, why had European explorers ignored the potential of the Australian continent before the first voyage of Captain James Cook to the pacific (1768-71)?

Manning Clark explores the social context of the exploration and colonisation of Australia, in particular as to why this ‘great southern land’ was left as a figment of the west’s imagination for such a long period of time. Clark describes this as being “odd” especially since “after the levels of the ocean rose, there was no geographical barrier to such an invasion.” He describes the fact that even the most ‘primitive’ of people with limited craft could have crossed over the straits from New Guinea or the Indonesian archipelago to the north coast of Australia. However, the ‘great southern continent’ was instead left practically untouched until the Voyage of Captain James Cook. Clark talks about an imaginary line that was drawn on the map between Timor and Macassar that basically marked the point where civilisation ended, and in its place, ‘barbarism’ began. Perhaps this assumption of something scary, unknown and ‘uncivilised’ plus the lack of need, both contributed to the lack of exploration of the area. However, over the course of the centuries, search for trade and goods mixed with a need to spread the word of god resulted in travel past the ‘inhabitable.’ The Dutch were the first to write actual accounts of ‘Australia’, however not giving the great south continent a good reputation. Willem Jansz recorded that “there was no good to be done there”, giving terrible accounts of the landscape. William Dampier emphasised this negative reputation of the landscape, animals and the native peoples, describing them as “the miserablest people in the world.” Between such accounts, it’s clear that Australia was not seen to be a desirable land, however, Dampier did express some hope for the continent in terms of trade within his books he released once back in Britain. All of the above aspects resulted in Australia being basically untouched for many centuries, until factors including ‘the enlightenment’ meant that Australia was given a second chance. Clark discusses the enlightenment as being a time in which the meaning of life was questioned and where Christianity and Religion in general had less and less power over people. Ways of thinking shifted towards science and exploration of the world around, but also the human condition, resulting in a higher civilization. This ‘higher Civilisation’ had no time for the superstitions of Catholicism and relished a lot more in trade and commerce, with individual profit providing much incentive. This new found interest in commerce mixed with a new ‘curiosity’ of the enlightenment meant that interest in the south seas were sparked again, in hope that the Dutch recounts were incorrect. In addition to this, technology was greatly improved within Europe, with superior shipbuilding, navigation and better general nautical knowledge. All these factors contributed to a sparked interest in exploration of the southern land, resulting in Captain Cook’s voyage between 1768-71.

 Botany Bay http://australianexplorers.tripod.com/maps.htm

This Map was first charted by Captain Cook in his exploration of the east coast of Australia.