Conflict between Europeans and Aborigines in Van Diemen's Land

The ‘black arm-band view of history’ was used by Professor Geoffery Blainey in 1993, and it is described here by Australian Prime Minister, John Howard in 1996:

“The ‘black armband’ view of our history     reflects a belief that most Australian History

since 1788 has been little more than a disgraceful story of imperialism, exploitation, racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination.” 

It is apparent that both Lyndall Ryan and Henry Reynolds would fall within the group of historians who could be described as taking the ‘black arm-band’ view of Australian history. The revisionist stance taken by Windschuttle would seem valuable here as a way of balancing the overall view of the topic.

The reasons that this conflict between Europeans and Aborigines came about would appear to be a direct result of differences in the use of land and resources between the two cultures. The tribal hunting grounds were taken as farms by the settlers the interests of the Aborigines were disregarded. The Aborigines, as established earlier, were nomadic and they roamed over a large area existing on such foods as kangaroo. The effect of the Europeans settling on farms was that the Aborigines and their game were excluded from an area previously available to them. Kangaroos, in particular, were incompatible with farming and they were killed in large numbers by the settlers. This appears to have put enough pressure on the food supply of the Aborigines to lead to them making demands on the Stock-keepers for provisions. With no way of expanding or renewing their diminished food supply, the Aborigines developed a dependence on provisions gained from Europeans to supplement their meagre resources. Windschuttle, however, terms this concept “The ‘Starving Natives’ Thesis” and demands that it is the least plausible of any claim relating to how settlement impacted on Aborigines. To support his position, Windschuttle notes that in 1824, 95% of Van Diemen’s Land was available for wildlife. This may not be entirely valid, however, as it was the settled areas in which the Aborigines lost their tribal hunting grounds. It would seem somewhat inevitable that pressure on their culture and their existence would lead to a change in the attitude of the Aborigines to the Europeans and this is recorded by Governor Arthur:  “Over a substantial period of time they had evinced a growing spirit of hatred, outrage and enmity against the settlers”  

The inevitability of war between the Europeans and the Aborigines in Van Diemen’s Land is supported by historian Henry Reynolds who writes ‘Hence the meeting of the white and Black races in Australia, considered generally, results in war.’ The period from 1824 through to the early 1830’s saw what is generally termed the ‘Black War’ between the Aborigines and the settlers. While there had long been occasional attacks on Europeans by Aborigines an increased number of attacks from 1824 lead to the introduction of martial law in Van Diemen’s Land, lasting from November 1828 to January 1832. What this meant to the Aborigines was that the military conducted small scale operations against them and had the authorisation to arrest or shoot any Aborigine on sight. Further to this, a bounty of five pounds for adults and two pounds for children was introduced in 1830. Some Europeans saw Aboriginal attacks on settlers to be ‘…the result of their inherent “wanton and savage spirit.”’ This explanation may not explain an increase in attacks, however, an Aboriginal leader, Umarrah, is reported to have stated that murders of settlers had occurred because of the Aborigines had been driven off their hunting grounds. 

The Black War was not a declared war against the Aborigines but merely a term given historically to the military action directed towards the Aborigines at this time. This action was, however, largely unsuccessful and, as an example, while martial law was in force Aborigines killed eighty nine settlers in the settled districts according to Ryan. Windschuttle puts the figure at 187 settlers and seventy-two Aborigines dead for the period 1824 - 1931. Curiously, Windschuttle also gives the figure of 187 settlers dead for ‘the 1820s’, although this may be a coincidence. The failure of martial law and military tactics to control the hostile Aborigines led, in October 1830, to the establishment of the ‘Black Line’. Lieutenant –Governor George Arthur decided on a large scale operation in which a human chain of two thousand or more men would sweep through the settled districts in an attempt to herd the Aborigines onto the Tasman Peninsular. Despite the large scale of the operation, its expense and the expectation that up to five hundred Aborigines would be captured, the ‘Black Line’ was relatively unsuccessful and in reality few Aborigines were caught. Perhaps it could be said that the real effect of the Black Line was psychological because George Augustus Robinson was able to mediate and convince the remaining Aborigines to be relocated to Flinders Island in Bass Strait.

It is clear that while the Aboriginal population in Van Diemen’s Land fell dramatically from the time of European settlement, only a relatively small number seem to have died due to violence inflicted by settlers. Windschuttle summarises the population figures thus:

“From a pre-contact population now widely accepted as between 4000 and 7000, it fell to 2000 in 1818 (Ryan), to 1500 in 1824 (Reynolds), to 350 in 1831 (Reynolds), to 200 in 1834 (the number eventually arrived at Flinders Island)”.

By far the largest number of Aboriginal deaths occurred prior to the ‘Black War’ years of 1824 – 1831 but then 1050 deaths occurred during this period. Taking into account the seventy-two deaths by violence noted by Windschuttle there are still almost 1000 non-violent Aboriginal deaths to be explained by other reasons. These other reasons include colds, influenza, pneumonia, tuberculosis and venereal diseases. Sexually transmitted diseases are thought to have resulted in some deaths and also lowered the Aboriginal population by inhibiting reproduction, although these non-violent reasons for Aboriginal deaths appear to be discounted by Ryan. Reproduction was also inhibited by the abduction or bartering of Aboriginal women to sealers. Aboriginal men traded their women for provisions or dogs and in some cases it is clear that the women preferred the sealers to whom they were traded to over their Aboriginal families. It is in this area that we find the two main reasons forwarded by Windschuttle for the demise of the Aborigines: that the demise of the Aborigines was ‘almost entirely a consequence’ of vulnerability to disease and loss of women. That ‘10,000 years isolation’ led the Aborigines to fall prey to the European diseases cited above would appear to be an entirely rational claim. Ryan and Reynolds take a contra view; both denying the existence of epidemics in Van Diemen’s Land and Reynolds holding what Windschuttle calls a ‘bullets rather than bacteria thesis’. Ryan offers two reasons for the absence of epidemics in Van Diemen’s Land: that the settlers had no contagious diseases and that the Aborigines were very healthy. While bullets were known to be the cause of many deaths, to suggest that European diseases did not have a substantial impact on the Aborigines is rather difficult to take seriously.

It is clear that the Aborigines of Van Diemen’s Land were wiped out; from possibly numbering as many as six or seven thousand at the time of settlement in 1804 to the last full blooded Aborigine (as generally accepted) dying in 1876.  The reasons given for the loss of these people are varied; embraced or discounted by one historian or another. The fact remains, however, that through contact and conflict with the settlers the Aborigines died out over a relatively short period of time and related directly to this is the question of intention. If the settlers had the intention to wipe out the Aborigines then there is no doubt that this would be a case of genocide.A cursory examination of the accounts given by historians uncovers discrepancies relating to the intentions of the European settlers toward the Aborigines such as these conflicting reports, the first from Clive Turnbull: ‘It was not so much that there was a general will for the extermination of the aborigines – although that was sometimes expressed – as that there was no general will against it.’ Lyndall Ryan, however, offers a contra view of the settler’s intentions, unfortunately with the same outcome, describing the Aborigines as: ‘victims of a conscious policy of genocide’. Windschuttle claims that the view of colonial genocide, while long supported, is untrue; perpetuated and exaggerated by myth and rumour. Typical of the discrepancies between different historian’s accounts is the story of what is considered to be the start of the killing of the Aborigines of Van Diemen’s Land: the ‘Risdon Massacre’ of 1804. The death toll from this ‘Massacre’ is put at three by Windschuttle, with an explanation given for reports of ‘up to fifty’ dead.

The History Wars between historians in the present day may be seen as an indication of how the fact and details of history can become altered over time and in this case perhaps distorted in some misguided attempt at providing a suitable picture of the past. In the case of Van Diemen’s Land the how and why of history may have been altered or misused but the tragic outcome for the Aborigines cannot be denied. It would appear that the two cultures, European and Aboriginal were incompatible. Culture would seem to encompass not just how the inhabitants (settler or indigenous) use the land but the attitudes of the inhabitants to others. Neither culture appeared to be either willing or able to come to a suitable accommodation when it was needed and before it was too late, so there appears to be a strong case to argue that the destruction of one society by another was inevitable. The events following the settlement of Van Diemen’s Land in 1803 appear to leave little doubt that, all disputes amongst historians aside, the entire full-blooded Aboriginal population was destroyed due to either violent conflict or neglect of their interests in one way or another.

Bibliography

BLW14, Course Materials, School of Business Law, Curtin University of Technology, 2006.

Dawson, J., Washout. On the academic response to the Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Paddington, Macleay Press, 2004.

Lang, G. S., The Aborigines of Australia, Melbourne, 1865, pp. 37-42, in Reynolds, H., Aborigines and Settlers, The Australian Experience, 1788 – 1939. North Melbourne: Cassell, 1972. xii.

MacGrath, A., (ed), Contested Ground, Australian Aborigines under the British Crown. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1995.

Manne, R., (ed), Whitewash. On Keith Windschuttle’s Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Camberwell, Schwartz Publishing, 2003.

Reynolds, H., Aborigines and Settlers, The Australian Experience, 1788 – 1939. North Melbourne: Cassell, 1972.

Ryan, L. The Aboriginal Tasmanians. St Lucia: Queensland University Press, 1981.

Ryan, L., The Aboriginal Tasmanians, 2nd Edition, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1996

Turnbull, C., Black War, The Extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines. Cheshire.1948.

Windschuttle, K., The Fabrication of Aborigine History, Volume one, Van Diemen’s Land, 1803 – 1847, Macleay Press, Sydney, 2003.

Websites

http://www.answers.com/topic/history-wars-1

http://www.answers.com/topic/robert-manne

http://antarqld.org.au/03_news/armband.html

http://www.sydneyline.com

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_Wars

---