Teach our children the real history of Australia

old man emu

Well-Known Member
#1
Did you know that there was a series of little invasion wars fought on the Australian continent from 1790 to the 1920's?

I suppose you'll say that that I've 'gone native" and am about to launch into a rant about European atrocities perpetrated on the Gentle Savages. Well, you are wrong. All I am saying is that over that 130 year period there occurred regular warfare between Aboriginal clans and the tide of European entry into Aboriginal's country. This part of the Europeanization of the continent is not mentioned in the historiography of the occupants of the continent.

The historiography which has been served up to us throughout the 20th Century ignores the process of Europeanization of the continent and the battles fought between the original occupants and the Europeans. Aboriginal people seem intent in calling 26th January "Invasion Day", in the same way that we call 6th June, D-Day, or 16th October 1066 Norman Invasion Day. The question is: Were the lands of the Aborigines "invaded".

The Oxford Dictionary of the English language defines "invade" as: (of an armed force) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.
Do the facts support the concept of invasion?
1. The Europeans carried firearms - rifles and pistols - as they moved into Aboriginal country.
2. The Europeans were prepared to use force up to the degree of "deadly force" to prevent Aborigines forcing them out of the newly entered lands.
3. The Europeans were intent on occupying the country by excluding the Aborigines.
4. The Europeans set about subjugating the country by clearing forests to promote grass growth, then further clearing to enable grain production t be carried out.

Did the Aborigines throw in the towel, letting the Europeans occupy and subjugate the country?
1. The Aborigines tried to beat gunpowder and lead with sticks and stones. They didn't have technological equality.
2. Aboriginal sovereignty over areas of land was based on family groups of the same clan occupying country with defined boundaries, and an agreement that clans did not cross boundaries without invitation. This resulted in a system where Aboriginal Nations, such as those amongst the Native Americans, did not develop. Therefore, Aborigines were not able to form the diplomatic and political groupings to assemble small armies to deal with the tide of arriving of Europeans.

Were there what we would "war crimes", and possibly even genocidal activities, carried out by Europeans during this 130 year period of war? Undoubtedly, Yes. Were there European casualties? Yes. Dose the same apply to the Aborigines? With the exception of genocidal activity, Yes.

How should Australian Society, one hundred years after the assumed end of the war, view this war?
1. Australian Society should acknowledge that the Aborigines who fought to prevent the invasion of their country, were brave men. It is the same recognition that we are prepared to give to the Turkish troops at the Dardanelles, the German troops of the Afrika Corps, and the crews of the midget subs that entered Sydney Harbour in 1942, as well as those Japanese involved in the Cowra Break-out.
2. Can we renounce the long term effects of the invasion? No
3. Should we return European ownership of country to Aborigines? NO. If we did, the Romans would have to recompense the Britons; the Danes would have to reimburse the Angles and Saxons of southeast England, and the Gaelic peoples of the northeast; the French would have to pay restitution to the Angles, Saxons, Danes and Britons of England, and the English would have to pay off the Welsh and the Gaelic-speaking natives of Cornwall and Ireland.

The invasion of Aboriginal country, and its associated little wars happened before 99.9% of European Australians were a twinkle in their old man's eyes. What was done is done.

In 1948, Aborigines were amongst many peoples, who were British subjects, who became Australian citizens by the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 . A distinct Australian nationality or citizenship was created on 26 January 1949. Persons who were British subjects on that date would continue to have that status but could in addition apply to acquire the new Australian citizenship if they were born in Australia. So 26th January is still a significant, positive, date for Aborigines to acknowledge.
 

Old Koreelah

Well-Known Member
#3
We should commemorate those who sacrificed all to protect their homeland; as long as they were white fellas like us...

Brave man OME, telling the truth like that... Lots of people react angrily when their cherished myths are challenged.
 

old man emu

Well-Known Member
#5
The "Victors " write the history books to suit their own interests. .Nev
That is true. The only writings from defeated peoples that I can recall are the Lindisfarne Chronicles, and The Diary of Anne Frank. No doubt there are a few more.

However both the "victors" and the "vanquished" who fought the Australian Black Wars have now past into history. One hundred years later, we have the resources to access the the real documentary evidence so that the Truth can be brought into the light. European culture on the continent has evolved so that oppression of Aborigines is frowned upon by the majority of Europeans.

It is time for both sides to proclaim the Truth, and to acknowledge that the living cannot reverse the events of the distant past. Today is the first day of the rest of Australia's life.
 

facthunter

Well-Known Member
#6
Many don't value truth especially if it's not pleasant for them. Nonetheless someday it will have to be faced. or the injustice and insult is perpetuated. That's not an acceptable situation. Nev
 

Yenn

Well-Known Member
#7
Aborigines did not become real Australian citizens in 1949. It was in the sixties when they got the same rights as us. I had more rights as a Ten Pound Pom, than the aborigines when I came here. I voted to give them the same rights, when I was not a real Australian. I was still British / English.
 

pmccarthy

Well-Known Member
#8
There is a British concept of punishing tribes or villages for the actions of a few individuals. By punishing i mean killing. After ww1 this was done by bombing villages in Syria. They did it extensively in Africa in the 19th century. A lot of the craziness in the world today can be traced back to colonial and imperial disregard for inferior (!) races. We must first acknowledge this and then try to balance relationships for the future.
 

Old Koreelah

Well-Known Member
#9
There is a British concept of punishing tribes or villages for the actions of a few individuals. By punishing i mean killing. After ww1 this was done by bombing villages in Syria. They did it extensively in Africa in the 19th century. A lot of the craziness in the world today can be traced back to colonial and imperial disregard for inferior (!) races. We must first acknowledge this and then try to balance relationships for the future.
Too many Australians have been sent to do the dirty work for the Great Powers. Decades after their service in Mesopotamia after The Great War, Australian airmen described the stress of being ordered to strafe Kurdish villages, even though they found the Kurds to be honourable, trustworthy and decent people. Their experience of the Arabs, who the British were supporting, was the opposite.
 

willedoo

Well-Known Member
#12
Aborigines did not become real Australian citizens in 1949. It was in the sixties when they got the same rights as us. I had more rights as a Ten Pound Pom, than the aborigines when I came here. I voted to give them the same rights, when I was not a real Australian. I was still British / English.
The 1967 referendum did two things for the Aboriginal people. They were finally included in the population count as Australians, and it also empowered the Federal Government to enact laws specifically for that racial group. They gained citizenship the same time as the whites, in 1949. 1949 also gave them the right to vote as long as their state allowed it. It varied from state to state as to whether they could vote or drink. In Queensland, the full bloods living in missions were wards of the state and had very little rights, whereas the mixed blood Aboriginals and some full blood Aboriginals employed on stations had voting and drinking rights well before 1967.

The 1967 referendum is often mis-represented in what it actually delivered and suffers from a few urban myths. The bulk of Aboriginal rights were delivered by the states before that time. But the '67 referendum was very significant for full bloods living under the status of wards of the state. They were the biggest winners from the referendum.
 

old man emu

Well-Known Member
#13
Willedoo is correct with his dates. The 1967 referendum was very restricted in what it achieved for Aborigines. It only changed the Constitution so that Aborigines were counted in the population. They had been excluded simply because at the time of Federation, it was thought that including Aborigines would skew the allocation of Senate seats in favour of Queensland and Western Australia. The other change was to permit the Federal Government to make laws that would apply to Aboriginals. This was actually a way of removing a bit of White Australia Policy, as the reason there was an exclusion in the original Constitution was so that the Federal Government could make laws affecting racial groups, but those laws would not affect Aboriginals.

Have a read of this: Australian 1967 Referendum

The British Government of the 1780's held that Aborigines were British subjects from 26th January 1788. If alive on 26th January 1949, they became "Australian citizens" by virtue of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 Part IV 25 (1)(a), and if born after that date by virtue of Part III 10 (1). Non-Aboriginals born in Australia before, or since, that date are Australian citizens by virtue of the same Act and Parts, although we ceased being British subjects through the The Australian Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1984
 
Top Bottom