Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Okay mate. You have the books. Please provide a single quote from Blainey which supports the specific contention "the annual percentage of aboriginals killed in warfare was greater than the percentage killed in each year of WW1".

There may well be a reference from Blainey which talks about tribal warfare in loosely these terms but it is an absolute guarantee you will have over egged it to blazes.

SR wrote (with, sadly, all the eloquence at his disposal) "Lol".

Quite why you think it funny that you've just been outed as a 30 second researcher is beyond me. I'd be embarrassed.

I was going to offer to give you the Blainey quotes in exchange for the Spectator link, but then realised that you're hiding that link for a reason and would, as usual, prefer to beclown yourself rather than admit error. So I won't bother.

Blainey quotes:

After describing one battle where two men were killed he writes:

"Occasionally, there were pitched battles or raids in which many men took part. The causalities might not, at first sight, seem large; but the death of two men in a battle involving 40 meant the causalities were approaching the scale of the Battle of the Somme. An aboriginal fight could absorb a large proportion of adults within a radius of fifty mile - indeed could involve the a far higher proportion of able-bodied adults in any war of the 20th century could possible involve."

Then after a long discussion about all the evidence around deaths in aboriginal warfare he writes:

"If we go on to accept a very cautious estimate of the number of fighting deaths, we arrive at the conclusion that the annual death rate in warfare equalled 1 for every 270 in the population. That death rate was probably not exceeded in any nation of Europe during any of the last three centuries".

He also talks about how William Buckley, who spent time with, and fighting for, one native group and had previous fought in the Napoleonic Wars, was shocked at how brutal the aboriginal battles were compared to those against Napoleon.

These are all in the Chapter 7 "Birth and Death" of "Triumph of the Nomads".

In reference to dispossession of Aboriginal land I see Torres Strait included. Can someone please tell us where Torres Strait Islanders have been dispossessed because I haven't heard of any !

Dear mhaze,

Then my argument would appear to be with Blainey rather than you on this score.

The first day of the Battle of the Somme of the 120,000 who attacked 20,000 men were killed.

Other figures reflect the great losses inflicted during the war.

"Alan Ogden, the Regimental Archivist for the Grenadiers, informed me that my great grandfather's battalion had suffered 1,286 fatalities over the course of the war. Battalions were about 1,000 strong at the start of the war, meaning that new members were put in and cycled through the unit several times (4,434 men served within 1 Battalion over the whole course of the war). This gives an overall death rate of 28 percent – it was 29 percent for 3 Battalion, 32 percent for 2 Battalion and 34 percent for 4 Battalion."

As for Buckley the battles Blainey related were interspersed with quotes like: "In the morning, I found the other tribe had gone away, and soon after we left for the place my friends chiefly inhabited, and there we lived for a very long time unmolested, and without anything particular occurring."

The ghost writer of Buckley's account Morgan was a newspaper editor with an eye to selling copies so the instances of fighting were understandably highlighted. But Blainey is being disingenuous in claiming this was was happening all the time or that it rivalled the Somme.

Steele and mhaze,

Wouldn't the Battle of the Little Big Horn be a better comparison, since 100% of Custer's men died.

BTW; I found the recent talk given at our local historical society, of the 3 convicts, Parsons, Pamphlett and Finnegan marooned in the Moreton Bay area in 1823 (200th anniversary) and living for 7 months with the local aborigines most interesting. Their accounts of warfare between various groups was different to some other European accounts.

SR,

You started off confidently asserting "but it is an absolute guarantee you will have over egged it to blazes."

then meekly wrote: "my argument would appear to be with Blainey rather than you on this score."

That, I guess, is SR's way of admitting error or apologising. But we've learned over the years that SR doesn't do apology of admission of error...just changes the subject.

Now since its impossible Mr 30sec Research will ever reading Blainey's book , perhaps a quick explanation will be required. The first quote I listed was all part of a larger discussion in the book that ran over 10 or so pages and which culminated in the conclusions which I partially cover in the second quote.

As to the Somme, taken over the whole battle, deaths were around 5% ie 1 in 20 (or 2 in 40!!). Taking one day out of that battle is just cherry-picking which is quintessential SR. ie reach the conclusion and look for the data.

So returning to the actual point which SR was so desperate to discredit, aboriginal society was highly militaristic and violent. Not only were aboriginal women constantly under attack by their men-folk but so were neighbours. Warfare was constant and vicious and sometimes genocidal. (Southern Arrente in Central Australia were virtually completely wiped out in an ambush that killed around 100, mostly women and children.)

The Disneyfication of aboriginal society continues apace and we will probably arrive at a time when information like that in Blainey's books will be banned. But in the meantime, we do the current aboriginals no favours by burying their true past. As I've said previously, we can't address aboriginal domestic violence without acknowledging its ancient roots.

" the Spectator link, but then realised that you're hiding that link for a reason and would, as usual, prefer to beclown yourself rather than admit error. So I won't bother."