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 20th 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
No comments:
Post a Comment