The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Invasion Day race-baiting does nothing to help Indigenous disadvantage > Comments

Invasion Day race-baiting does nothing to help Indigenous disadvantage : Comments

By John Slater, published 28/1/2016

A day founded on the idea of national unity is increasingly being used by race baiters as a platform to preach collective guilt and perseverate in reciting historical grievance.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Minotaur,

I should clarify that I do think it's very likely that a range of killings took place, from single to multiple murders. After all, invasions provoke responses, and those responses provoke further killings - that's in the very nature of invasions, whether by the Romans, or the Normans, or by the Muslims, or any other colonial powers.

But where, and how often, and how violent - these have to be demonstrated. Without evidence, I would suspect that, for all that, there were massacres out beyond the reach of government in all states. There are many factors to take into account, the perceived value of the land to pastoralists, the population recovery from drought, the pull-factor of ration stations and missions, etc.

Still thinking this all through, with more factors to consider, after fifty years :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 2 February 2016 8:11:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is quite simple Joe, Nick Clements presented his research in a PhD thesis for scrutiny and would not have it accepted if it simply stated hearsay. From that he got a book published, here I'll even give you the title: The Black War - Fear, Sex and Resistance in Tasmania. Rather than relying on something you read ten years ago and been completely discredited in that time by genuine academic historians it would serve your knowledge base greatly to read more contemporary accounts of history. You know, stuff that has been researched!
Posted by minotaur, Wednesday, 3 February 2016 9:05:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Drab, thanks for graphically demonstrating you know absolutely nothing about Aboriginal Tasmanians. Your ignorance is telling.
Posted by minotaur, Wednesday, 3 February 2016 9:07:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Minotaur,

Greg Lehman's review of Clements, in 'Aboriginal History', Vol. 39, 2015, makes some telling criticisms of Clements' thesis:

"The most obvious obstacle is that there are no first-person accounts by Aborigines of events described in each of the ‘Black’ sections. Both ‘Black’ and ‘White’ must be read through the lens of a non-Aboriginal commentator, inescapably enmeshed and inevitably partisan. The author acknowledges the problem as a limitation of the archive, but I am not sure that this is enough to surmount the moral and ethical dimensions of this challenge."

"Those seeking a rigorous contribution to the question of genocide in Tasmania will not find it in The Black War. A few critical contributors to the debate are briefly dismissed in favour of Reynolds’ conclusions, without reinforcing argument or discussion. In fairness, Clements makes it clear that his volume is not the place for ‘delving deep into government policy’ (p. 56). Rather, he argues the use of genocide because there was no ideological basis for the killing of Aborigines by colonists."

What ?

"Clements effectively transforms Reynolds’ idea of Aborigines as a proactive resistance, into one where they formed a determined aggressor no more or less guilty of genocide than the colonists. "

Say again ? Even I wouldn't fully agree with that equation.

But, unless Clements presents some in his thesis, there still doesn't seem to be much in the way of evidence mentioned in Lehman's review, which is frustrating.

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 3 February 2016 10:38:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[continued]

I wonder if people think, well, there HAD to be massacres, because the pastoralists didn't want Aboriginal people round. But they usually did: squatters needed people who knew the country, who could take to horses quickly and who were bound to that country, and wouldn't shoot through at the first opportunity, like whitefellas. They needed Aboriginal women to help their wives with the housework (as my wife did in the sixties).

In a couple of Arthur Upfield's 'Bony' detective novels, pastoralists actually build weirs on seasonal rivers to trap water, precisely in order to attract Aboriginal groups to camp near their homesteads, so that they could use the younger men as stockmen.

In SA, pastoralists used their control of ration depots to maintain a local population - even though they were never paid to do the job by the Protector or to set up a store-room for their tonnes of rations, it was still worth their while just to have a reliable supply of labour handy.

But to get back to Clements's thesis, Minotaur, perhaps you've read his thesis and picked out hard evidence of massacres ? Any hard evidence to contradict Windschuttle's account of three hundred people killed in thirty years ?

I haven't done a count, but in SA, that figure of three hundred, about half and half, sounds about right. But I suspect that it was far higher in Queensland - in fact, across the entire North and down to the Pilbara and Gascoyne. Maybe not in the tens of thousands ? This is why evidence is so crucial - without it, why believe anything ? Just for the passion ? Not enough.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 3 February 2016 10:45:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe, since you are intent on using Greg Lehman, the man who wrote one of the most inaccurate and misleading articles about what happened at Risdon Cove on 3 May 1804, as some sort of guide maybe you overlooked this from him about Clements’ research. “the author attempts to construct a social history of the attitudes and actions of both parties to the conflict. He does this with extensive reference to an impressive array of primary sources, drawn from Tasmania’s rich colonial archive.” That means Lehman is actually impressed with the level of research and the amount of primary sources used. Clements also provides extensive evidence to support his claims…which Lehman is acknowledging.

Lehman is right that Clements does not agree with genocide being an aim as Tasmanian Aborigines were offered a peaceful (yet ultimately destructive) solution of removal from the main island…with a promise of being able to return when safe to do so. Regardless there are records of massacres all over Australia and you seem to be denying them Joe and so far done a very poor job of presenting anything of substance to refute anything. And to be relying on some detective novels for a source of information is worthless.

When you have something of substance get back to me Joe…so far all you’ve done is present hollow arguments and blatant mistruths. I have no time or regard for either.
Posted by minotaur, Wednesday, 3 February 2016 11:03:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy