"Gray defines war 'as an act of force to compel an enemy to do your will'"

And since when do we give medals and memorials to the "enemy"?

"Native peoples fought the invaders on a tribe by tribe basis because each of them was a sovereign people defending their land"

Not even strategic enough to form an alliance! No wonder they lost.

"it is incumbent on non-Indigenous Australians to own our past"

And the Aborigines? They can still claim the land is "theirs", even though they lost the "war"? Absurd!

Hi Fran,

To repeat,

"It has always been legal - even now - for Aboriginal people to go onto pastoral leases (and Crown land) to use the land as they had always done traditionally."

In South Australia, about half of the ration depot managers were pastoralists, unpaid, who had to provide a store-room for up to a few tons of supplies. Rations were for the elderly, sick and infirm, nursing mothers an orphans. Able-bodied people were able to hunt and fish and gather as they always had done. And still can, if they have a mind to.

According to the record, which of course we are free to ignore, the number of whites killed by Aborigines in the early days, almost always over sheep or supplies, far outnumbered the number of Aborigines killed by whites. [Of course, the record would say that, wouldn't it, you may add].

Ration depots all over Australia acted as pull-factors - people came IN to the depots, they didn't - as I and many others have always thought, but without a shred of evidence - that people moved OUT, away from the 'Frontier', away from ration depots. But people weren't stupid then or now: if the dependants of a group could get free food, then why not ? A huge burden was taken off the able-bodied, who, in any case, were as happy to work for money wages - and buy tobacco and clothes and, where possible, grog, in the process.

Ask yourself: what happened to those dependants in pre-European times during the frequent Australian droughts ? They died. Babies being nursed died. Old people died. I would suggest that during long droughts, up to half the population may have died. Of course, the more mobile moved into the shelter of neighbouring groups if they had friendly relations with them, but otherwise people died.

[TBC]

[continued]

With a ration system, those days were gone. Not only that, but during droughts, the able-bodied were also provided with rations. People seemed to camp usually a mile or two from depots. In SA, a drought lasted throughout almost the whole of the 1800s. What cultural impact might that have had in traditional times ? What cultural impact might it have had under the ration system ?

From what I can tell from the record, that system lasted well into the twentieth century. So the question arises: do we go by available evidence, or by our gut-feelings ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info

r there commemorate sites in NZ where the Maori's ate previous inhabitants? if not why not?

Oops, I meant the '1890s'. Sorry :(

Certainly, the subject deserves a lot more acknowledgement in mainstream discourse. Although some excellent work has been done in this area - especially the SBS documentary, The First Australians - the true story of the frontier wars is still beyond the general knowledge of most Australian people.

I for one don't seek it out much because I find it too heartbreaking. I'm such a coward.

Having said that, however, I don't see the point of adding another set of war commemorations to an already overcrowded war commemoration agenda on the Australian cultural calendar. I'd rather see us ditch all this Anzac obssessing rather than adding empty commemorations of our frontier wars.