Popular culture portrays Australia as a nation born out of free people with a common sense of identity and unity. Therefor it is difficult for many to come to terms with the Frontier conflict which Reynolds argues ‘was apparent in almost every part of Australia through it varied in duration and intensity’. He argues that Aboriginal clans suffered disproportionately compared to the pioneer communities, however they also inflicted death, injury, property loss and prolonged anxiety on these settler communities. Historians such as Geoffrey Blainey and Keith Windshuttle have argued against particularly the notion of deliberate frontier violence perpetrated by Pioneers, as well as the scope and scale of the conflict, and its consequences. This historical debate has been called the History Wars.
The “Black Armband view of history”, a term coined by Geoffrey Blainey, and made use of by former Prime Minister John Howard to describe a position within society arguing that the current population was not willing to be burdened with the responsibility and guilt of the past, as well as a defence of the positive and credible legacy left by the early pioneers.
A lack of written tradition and accountable records on both sides of the conflict, and the historical distance that exists between the protagonists and historians has allowed this position to percolate through society. The sporadic and localized nature of the conflict, as well as a clear lack of communicated overarching policy with regards to frontier conflict, from the continental Pioneer communities and the administrations, makes it difficult to tie down a particular position to blame, which therefor shifts blame onto the wider pioneer group (with the exception of Tasmania, where there was a concerted effort by the general population to remove Aborigines).
Reynolds is criticized by Windshuttle for his for his extrapolation of available data in an attempt to recreate accurate data which is unavailable due to the lack of historical records. Windshuttle argues that ‘If you don’t have the records, you can’t say.’ It is however worth examining the general trends in Reynolds academic numbers as possible scope for the nature of the conflict, rather than dismissing them out of hand as Windshuttle does.
This apportioning blame to the wider community, does not sit well with many people (e.g. Howard), who feel that the debate has too much emphasis on the Aboriginal suffering, and not enough on the loss suffered by the Pioneer people, as well as the detracting the the wonderful foundation work done by those early settlers. A sense of national pride is felt through the achievements of the pioneer population. By soiling the pioneers reputation by examining their actions out of context through the prism of a modern historical viewpoint, society that survives today is somehow is painted with the same brush.
There is no doubt there was conflict however, which draws the conclusion that there was very much a Frontier war, while the extremely diverse History war over its duration and scope continues to rage.
Source: Gare & Ritter, Making Australian History (Perspectives on the past since 1788), CENGAGE Learning, 1st Edition
The “Black Armband view of history”, a term coined by Geoffrey Blainey, and made use of by former Prime Minister John Howard to describe a position within society arguing that the current population was not willing to be burdened with the responsibility and guilt of the past, as well as a defence of the positive and credible legacy left by the early pioneers.
A lack of written tradition and accountable records on both sides of the conflict, and the historical distance that exists between the protagonists and historians has allowed this position to percolate through society. The sporadic and localized nature of the conflict, as well as a clear lack of communicated overarching policy with regards to frontier conflict, from the continental Pioneer communities and the administrations, makes it difficult to tie down a particular position to blame, which therefor shifts blame onto the wider pioneer group (with the exception of Tasmania, where there was a concerted effort by the general population to remove Aborigines).
Reynolds is criticized by Windshuttle for his for his extrapolation of available data in an attempt to recreate accurate data which is unavailable due to the lack of historical records. Windshuttle argues that ‘If you don’t have the records, you can’t say.’ It is however worth examining the general trends in Reynolds academic numbers as possible scope for the nature of the conflict, rather than dismissing them out of hand as Windshuttle does.
This apportioning blame to the wider community, does not sit well with many people (e.g. Howard), who feel that the debate has too much emphasis on the Aboriginal suffering, and not enough on the loss suffered by the Pioneer people, as well as the detracting the the wonderful foundation work done by those early settlers. A sense of national pride is felt through the achievements of the pioneer population. By soiling the pioneers reputation by examining their actions out of context through the prism of a modern historical viewpoint, society that survives today is somehow is painted with the same brush.
There is no doubt there was conflict however, which draws the conclusion that there was very much a Frontier war, while the extremely diverse History war over its duration and scope continues to rage.
Source: Gare & Ritter, Making Australian History (Perspectives on the past since 1788), CENGAGE Learning, 1st Edition
 |
| 'Mounted Police and Blacks' depicts the killing of Aboriginals at Slaughterhouse Creek by British troops. The image appeared as the frontispiece to the first volume of Mundy's publication, 'Our Antipodes: or, Residence and Rambles in the Australasian colonies, with a Glimpse of the Goldfields' (3 vols, London, 1852). It was one of twelve landscape and stylised action scenes he drew for the volume. The lithograph was executed by W.L. Walton after sketches by Mundy and his wife, Louisa. The Slaughterhouse Creek massacre occured in 1838 when Mounted police, mostly European volunteers, set out in response to conflict on the Liverpool Plains north of central NSW. At 'Vinegar Hill', a site on Slaughterhouse Creek, 60 to 300 (exact number unknown) Aboriginals were reported killed. The European casualty was a Corporal speared in the leg. (Description courtesy of Australian War Memorial)This painting while not providing explanation for the conflict, highlights the military nature of the conflict, particularly on the side of the British. The use of armed uniformed police is a confronting and waging a frontier conflict points much more towards a deliberate act rather than an isolated incident. (http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/ART50023/) |
No comments:
Post a Comment