How can an article about water issues and some bloke's bushwalking days be used as a basis for discussion concerning:

one sentence on activists and invasion?

The African bushman has survived through similar droughts for millennia, and who knows where the apparent dry riverbed invariably holds water, that can be sucked up using a hollow reed, with some dry sphagnum moss wrapped around its end! They are also skilled hunters, and can survive were no Tasmanian bush-walker, however experienced, could!
Similarly, the Australian aborigine knew where there was permanent water, even in the driest of times, and in the most arid country.
Much of what the white man has contributed, clear felling and swamp, [wetland,] draining, has destroyed much of the natural water resources, that indigenous populations previously could count on, to iron out the feast or famine nature of the rainfall.
Australia was once a land covered from coast to coast in verdant rainforest, and was once a very much wetter place.
Only in the last 12-14000 years has this changed.
Part of the problem, could have been the migration to these shores, of hunters, who relied almost exclusively, on fire as a hunting tool?
And like the Mayan civilisation, destroyed much of what had previously and reliably sustained quite large populations.
As for dropping the word invasion?
Given most of the early settlers arrived in chains and not by choice!
It's had to see it as an invasion, just enforced migration?
However, and on the other hand, the Tasmanian Aborigine, was hunted down until almost extinct, as indeed were other mainland indigenous communities.
And therefore, seen through their eyes, it was an invasion; and or, war!
And no, it wasn't all one-sided!
But, the responses to a few culled sheep or cows, were massively disproportional, with whole communities massacred!
Many of my Northern NSW white forbears would have died or starved, but for the native generosity, inherent caring and sharing way of life, bush tucker and bush medicine.
Therefore, no hand or firearm, was raised in anger, when one or two sheep disappeared from flocks that numbered in the hundreds.
However, that seems to have been the exception rather than the rule, in the clash of cultures!
Rhrosty.

The scariest thing is that if a calamenty were too strike and cause a technology black hole, the vast majority of us in the first world would not be able to survive.

"The scariest thing is that if a calamenty were too strike and cause a technology black hole, the vast majority of us in the first world would not be able to survive."

Exactly, and in the same way, when a calamity struck (drought) many Aborigines did not survive. This is why the 'secrets' (water source) of 'country' were kept so close and only passed on to initiated kin. Secrets of country endlessly fought over and protected, endless inter tribal/clan warfare, as witnessed thoughout most continental areas subject to these regular calamities. Saharan Africa and the Middle East being obvious examples.

Whilst the author took an interesting, somewhat circular rout to reach the "one sentence on activists and invasion", his is a valid 'take' on the conclusion we may draw. Our cultural perceptions are wisely tempered with, as Rhrosty states, an "on the other hand" look at any conclusions reached.

It is healthy to unpack the variety of 'myths' that develop concerning people's and cultures, as the author has done here.

Prompete,

I was thinking much the same myself, that in the inevitable droughts, the Aboriginal population would often be devastated. I have been doing some work on the Correspondence of the Protector of Aborigines here in SA, 1841-1940, and the development of a system of around 100 ration depots across the State through the late nineteenth century - so often, pastoral lessees report local Aboriginal people being in a destitute condition and he rushes Stores out by the quickest route.

But it was not just a shortage of water, but of 'natural foods', animals which could move out of drying areas much more quickly than humans - and even so, they were often wiped out by the lack of feed and surface water.

At the 1899 Royal Commission "into the Aborigines", coming at the end of decade of drought, lessees report people coming out of the desert like bags of bones, with bands tied around their abdomen to stop the hunger pains. And what happened to old people, and small children, in those times ? They died. Simple as that. At the same Royal Commission, a copper reports discovering an old lady under a bush sway out in the desert, near Camooweal, on her own, waiting to die.

The Aboriginal population must have fluctuated enormously over the last fifty thousand years, region by region. It must have been no picnic to try to survive droughts and maybe half the time, too, going by how often droughts come around - the 1880s drought, the nineties drought, the Federation drought, the 1930s drought, the 1960s and 21990s droughts. This can be a b@stard of a country, it has not been all sweetness and light. Nobody is magic, not even Aboriginal people.

I remember a lecture given here in Adelaide by Henry Reynolds, from JCU - he remarked that when he flew down, he was already over dry, semi-desert country before the plane had really got much height, and was still over it as the plane was coming down into Adelaide. Yes, there is a lot of hard country out there.

Cheers,

Joe

Oh dear Brian, your article is an unfortunate series of highly illogical extensions.

Firstly, one of the most fundamental points of survival for the Aborigines in arid areas was knowing where they could get water in dry times. They were highly nomadic and obviously knew how to read the landscape and move on when food and water resources necessitated it.

Secondly, Aborigines lived all over the continent, not just in arid areas. Even in the worst and most widespread drought, I can’t imagine that significant mortality would have occurred, let alone anywhere near the extent of being close to extinction.

Thirdly, even if the water security afforded by European society was a significant factor, it was nothing compared to the negative factors of the destruction of culture and the alcoholism, welfare dependency and hopelessness of a people forced to live on the fringes of the society of their invaders.

I find the notion that better water provision alone should somehow annul or greatly dilute the invasion and destruction of the indigenous culture of this land to be absurd and quite frankly, offensive.

Brian, I have enjoyed many of your articles, but this time you have really got my hackles up.

Ludwig. Some valid points/observations. I think however, that Brian's point of de-legitimising some of the 'noble savage' paradigm that pervades is ok.

On another point, your "offensive" feelings may, with the unamended passage of Roxtons latest legislation, allow you to take Brian to court to seek redress for your feelings and Brian would never be below to voice this opinion again.

It is the all pervading 'grievance' and 'victim hood' political correctness that Brian, thank heavens, is challenging here.

Ludwig,

Two points:

* when pastoralists took up their leases out in the dry country (at least down here in SA) they had to drill wells in huge numbers for their sheep, which need water every six miles or so. So they created many watering-points unintentionally for native animals and Indigenous people, who - as in other states and the NT - had the right to use the land as they had done for tens of thousands of years, in accordance with a clause written into every pastoral lease (check out the writings of Jamie Dalziel on this point, and Dalziel and Henry Reynolds, NSWLR, 1996).

* along the Murray and indeed, all waterways, the Protector during the nineteenth century issued people with fishing tackle and boats - in one contract, he ordered the building of twenty six 14-ft boats just for people around the lower Lakes. Each year, around a ton of netting twine was distributed. This change in fishing practices would have been incredibly bountiful for the Aboriginal people, since the rivers and lakes teemed with fish, which were easier to catch with line and hook than with fishing spear - spears went out of 'fashion' within weeks of people finding out about lines and hooks, not to mention nets. The boats would have also been something of a godsend. Possibly, even the people on Cooper's Creek were supplied with a couple of 15-ft boats, as well as fishing tackle, from the 1880s.

Maybe we are more aware, down here in SA, of how dry our country is, and how limited food and water may become during droughts. Aboriginal people are not magicians and there is a lot of hard country out there.

Cheers,

Joe

As others have noted, the Aboriginal was nomadic, followed the game and the rainfall.
When white settlers arrived, there were heavily forested areas along the eastern seaboard, and virtual endless reliable water flows.
The Bunya mountains, would have provided a tri annual feast from pine nuts nearly as large as a mans hand and scrub turkey, [better than KFC chicken,] were and remained plentiful until the white hunter and shot gun arrived.
Fish were simply scooped up after being stunned with native bush medicine, which also doubled as soap, when the hands were dirty.
There were fish traps in virtually every estuary, and bountiful shell fish, were also collected.
Alexander Pearce and a few of his cell mates escaped from Sarah Island in a stolen boat.
However, they only made it as far as the Pieman river.
They starved and resorted to cannibalism, even though surrounded on all sides by bush tucker.
And there were plenty of sea worthy canoes, dugong and turtle!
People survived in this land for 40-60,000 years, and really only needed white assistance, when their nomadic lifestyle was removed from them, by white acquisition of their traditional hunting lands.
Yes sure, the new wells allowed some to continue to stay in one place and survive?
The consequent enforced dependence on white settlers, resulted in slave wages and slave labour, with a bit of baccy, some tea, sugar, sack cloth and flour, substituting for honest wages, or a fair days pay for a fair days work.
People lived in tin sheds with dirt floors.
Children were stolen from their parents, just because they happened to have some white blood! Often the product of rape?
Yes sure things were tough for the native before white settlement, but arguably, got a whole lot tougher, after he arrived and tried to civilise people, who knew more about the land and survival, than any intrepid white adventurer!
Oh sure, 1788 was good for a few of the landed gentry, but hardly any of the first people, or those who arrived bowed down with iron chains.
Rhrosty.

Hi Rhosty,

I admire your ability to think and write only in cliches, it's certainly economical. Some of what you write touches on reality - but then shies away. Yes, life in river valleys and estuaries must have been usually pretty good, never any shortage of food or water (hence - as the Berndts wrote about the Ngarrindjeri here in SA on the Murray, they never needed to develop and maintain increase ceremonies, hence no 'secret women's business'.)

But out in the drier country, life may not have been so rosy. Across much of southern SA, limestone plateaus didn't retain water, so animals and people had to move around relatively far and wide to gain any sustenance - and semi-desert groups were always intruding into River-people's country, sometimes peacefully by offering marriage partners, sometimes not so peacefully.

In the drier country, beyond the Murray or Ranges, droughts would have periodically devastated groups, particularly their younger children and their elders. Life may not have been quite so idyllic, not so many fish-traps, mussel beds, crowds of bettong frolicking near the fire, out there.

But yes, in the good times, life even on the Cooper's Creek would have been bountiful - in the 1880s, the Protector here had two 15-ft boats built for the people up there, and thanks to the fishing tackle which was standard issue as part of rations wherever there was water, one year people hauled in nearly fifty thousand perch with their new technology.

[TBC]

[continued]

But children stolen from their parents ? Find examples and get back to me. Looking at the school records (1880-1960) at the community my wife came from, it struck me belatedly that almost none of the kids on the school roll were strangers - out of 800 kids enrolled at some time at the Mission school, only about 20 were 'outsiders', i.e., not the children of parents living and working there -

i.e. if kids were taken AND people were 'herded onto Missions', then logically Mission School rolls would have shown huge numbers of 'outsiders', but not at this particular Mission, so maybe nowhere else either.

So perhaps children were taken away FROM this Mission, away from their people ? Well, out of the 800 kids ever enrolled between 1880 and 1960, only about forty were ever put into care, and all but one or two came back, usually in a year or less. 40 mothers died leaving 140 school-age children without mothers in that time, but only a fraction of those were ever put into care. Some fathers died, and when the mothers remarried, their teenage daughters were sent off to the Fullarton Girls' Home, but every one eventually married an Aboriginal bloke.

It's interesting how we tend to judge the past in terms of current social practices and situations - so we are no longer aware that around 5 % of white kids were taken off to be adopted or into orphanages.

But the huge Goodwood 'Orphanage' here in Adelaide never, as far as I can tell, took in an Aboriginal kid.

There was a comparatively small home for Aboriginal kids at Colebrook, which was at first based at Oodnadatta, made up mostly of children of workers in the marginal cattle industry - and why, if the devious and evil purpose of wicked authorities was to raise Aboriginal kids as white kids, did they set up a home in Oodnadatta, the most remote town in South Australia ? Why not Goodwood ?

Time for a re-think :)

Of those 'stolen generation' children cases bought before the courts seeking redress, I believe only one of those (South Australia) stood up.

Many years ago (70's), whilst working in Jigallong in the western desert, I met the 'rabbit proof fence' girls and family. The circumstances of their removal were not very accurately portrait in the film. I believe this is an example of Loudmouths' efforts in portraying a reality that is more centred in the historic record and evidence.

You're busy tonight, Prompete :)

Now that you mention the Rabbit-Proof Fence story, it raises issues of evidence and 'proof': IF that had happened as it was supposed to, what would one need as evidence ?

At the time, WA had a Conservative government, but the main newspaper was Labor-oriented. In WA, there was a Rabbit Department (really).

As it happens, Arthur Upfield set one of his first 'Boney' detective novels at a place called Burracoppin, on the fence, where Boney had to work under cover to solve a murder. The story is set in 1931 or 1932. He has a stretch of about seven miles of fence to keep clear and replace the posts, etc. Along the entire Fence (or Fences, actually) there must have been many hundred of employees.

IF the story was true, and three little girls made their way along a thousand-mile fence, across moonscapes, then police and Rabbit Department staff would have been alerted all along the track, once it was clear that the girls were following the fence. Hotels would have been booked out by police, Rabbit Department staff would have been alerted and even called in to assist the police. The local newspapers would have twigged pretty soon. And so the 'West Australian' would have become involved: it would have had a field day.

An election saw a change of government between 1932 and 1933. The new Labor Government held a Royal Commission into Aboriginal Affairs (the Moseley Commission), but there seems to have been no mention of this incident at the Royal Commission.

[TBC]

[cont.]

The Protector, A. O. Neville, had an enormous thorn in his side in the person of Mrs Mary Bennett, a very progressive and passionate defender of Aboriginal rights, and a prolific writer. I don't think she ever wrote anything about girls escaping from Moore river to go north along the rabbit-proof fence.

When Neville died in 1949, by the way, there were supposed to be a thousand Aboriginal people at his funeral, many from the Coorbaroo Club which he had helped indirectly to form.

When I was kid, I asked my grandfather how I was born - he told me that I was found under a cabbage. Grandparents have a funny sense of humour.

Joe