What gets recognised?
The Rudd Government has announced that the Myall Creek massacre site is to be heritage listed. Back in 1838, 28 Aborigines were murdered at the site; seven convicts were later hanged for the crime.
The heritage listing of the site is part of a longer term trend in which one aspect only of race relationships in colonial Australia is recognised, namely white violence toward Aborigines.
I spent a number of years reading colonial era newspapers and it gave me a fuller picture of the reality of the era. The most common attitude of white settlers toward Aborigines was one of curiosity, particularly about Aboriginal language and customs.
As for violence, the situation was more complex than is usually recognised. Yes, there was violence by whites towards Aborigines on the newly settled frontier. But there were also occasions when whites helped to prevent violence between different groups of Aborigines. There were some Aborigines who helped rescue white settlers. There were other Aborigines who murdered white settlers.
I quote from a good post Over at The Oz Conservative that is well worth a read…
Check it out Comrades
😉
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
Richardson’s post is utter crap Iain. It’s selective quoting from “official records”. Umm, they didn’t keep official records of all the massacres of non-whites back in the 19th century mate. I’ll give you one huge example:
Here in Bright and the nearby Buckland Valley is the site of the greatest ever massacre of Chinese people – even exceeding the atrocity of Tianamen square.
It happened in 1857 and is widely known as the “Buckland goldfield riots”. Now I can’t say for certain how many Chinese miners were massacred (for having the audacity to successfuly find gold in what were abandoned claims) but before the “riots” (consisting of armed white miners marching on the Chinese diggings with weapons including guns and sabres) the estimated Chinese population was around 3,000 … and after the “riots”, well none were to be found.
But the “official” records record one death.
Speaks for itself. Richardson is jerking himself if he thinks aboriginal crimes against European settlers were antyhing like the number of atrocities committed on them. Just the fact that he wants to make a post like that suggests strong racist beliefs. I mean, what is his real problem with sites like Myall Creek being recognised for what they were – unjust killing fields.
Ray Dixon, I made no claims about the numbers killed on either side. I simply pointed out that the violence didn’t go one way and that many of the white Australians I speak to are surprised to learn this.
Nor is the idea of “selective quoting” relevant to my post. I gave a few examples of Aboriginal violence toward white settlers. That’s all that I claimed to be doing.
Why did I bother to point out that the violence went both ways? Because I identify with traditional Australia and don’t like to see it unjustly maligned. This doesn’t mean denying wrongs that did take place; it does mean, though, not accepting a biased, filtered version of history in which the white settlers only ever appear as villains.
Your own comment is a good case in point. You rush in to make a stupendously unlikely claim, namely that the greatest ever massacre of Chinese people happened near Bright, Victoria. It would be utterly extraordinary, if true. For instance, when the Japanese Army occupied Nanking in the 1930s they massacred 200,000 civilians. Do you really think that more than 200,000 Chinese were killed by some white miners in Bright in 1857?
Why do you want to believe things which make your own forebears look worse than they really were?
Ray Dixon, I have just checked out the Journal of Chinese Australia to find out what happened to your missing 3000 Buckland Chinese. It turns out that they left the Buckland diggings not only because of the riot but also because the alluvial gold ran out. Most returned to nearby Beechworth, others headed north. According to the journal article:
“From Beechworth, Chinese joined the rush to the rich Buckland Valley diggings in 1856-57. At its height the population there was estimated to be 3000 Chinese miners, outnumbering Europeans by at least five to one.[5] Driven out both by racist violence and by the decline in alluvial gold, many returned to Beechworth. Others, however, moved further up the valley to the Bright diggings, forming solid communities in Bright, Wandiligong, Germantown and Harrietville.”
The article even provides a map showing the movement of the Chinese in north-east Victoria during the colonial period (see here).
Selective reading Mark – to support your own position, that’s all.
Ray, shouldn’t you at least concede that your comment about the Buckland riot being the worst ever massacre of Chinese was wrong.
I wanted to check your claims about the riot and read four historical accounts of it. The worst that any of the accounts had to say of the riot was that several Chinese are thought to have died from drowning after being driven toward the river by about 100 miners armed mostly with sticks/pickaxe handles. In Nanking the Japanese Army is thought to have massacred 200,000 to 300,000 civilians.
You can’t react to these facts simply by claiming that it is selective reading on my part. It’s not reasonable to expect that a relatively small group of miners could inflict the same amount of damage as a professional army. It’s not reasonable to believe that a toll of 3 might somehow be made, by a tweaking of sources, to outnumber 200,000 to 300,000.
check and mate!
nice work Mark.
And thanks for your informative article also.
I live in this area Mark and it’s well known that many Chinese were massacred in the Buckland and in Bright. And they didn’t outnumber miners in the area 5 to 1, only in the Buckland. I’d trust the local anecdotal and passed down history well ahead of any “official” accounts. And despite the claims in the source you refer to there are not a lot of Chinese descendants living around here – hardly any.
Btw, comparing my claim about a civil riot to war deaths is just ridiculous. They’re two different sets of circumstances.
My point is you are using the “official” accounts to support your arguments, your version of history and your belief that aborigines were not innoncent victims of European settlement: (eg The heritage listing of the site is part of a longer term trend in which one aspect only of race relationships in colonial Australia is recognised, namely white violence toward Aborigines.)
As I said in my first comment, what is your real problem with sites like Myall Creek being recognised for what they were – unjust killing fields? And why would you want to see the so-called “other aspect” recognised too? It’s like you’re trying to say, “well they were just as bad as US WHITES.”
It’s just a tad too defensive … and divisive.
Riveting comment from Leon though.
Leon, thanks.
Ray, you write that you will only accept a comparison to a civil riot and not a massacre of civilians in war time. Well then, consider the case of Indonesia. There have been at least four civil riots there in which thousands of Chinese were massacred. In 1740 there were five to ten thousand Chinese killed in Batavia. In 1965, during the anti-communist purge, the ethnic Chinese were targeted and thousands were killed. In 1967, the native Dayaks in West Kalimantan turned against the Chinese; some sources give a death toll of 42,000. In 1998, there were 1200 Chinese killed in riots in Jakarta.
Each of these events far outweighs what happened in the Buckland Valley in 1857; we are dealing with death tolls of several thousand rather than several.
As for sources, I would not rely on 150-year-old anecdotal evidence. Let me give you just one example of the unreliability of such evidence. In 2001 the then Governor-General, Sir William Deane, travelled to the Kimberley district in order to apologise to the Kija Aborigines for a terrible massacre inflicted on them at Mistake Creek by whites in the 1930s. The Governor-General relied for his information on oral history: on the memory held of the massacre by members of the Kija tribe.
He should have checked the official records. The massacre took place not in the 1930s but in 1915 and it was perpetrated not by whites but by other Aborigines in a dispute over an Aboriginal woman. The archives hold the records of witness statements by the surviving Aborigines. The oral history was wrong.
Ray’s hyperbole was obviously wrong but the sentiment of his post wasn’t. Of course any killing of Chinese in colonial Australia is not going to surpass the killing of Chinese elsewhere in the world – but it could well surpass other Australian mass killings, given that our history is generally free of such things.
As for the argument about which is more reliable, oral or official history, the answer lies somewhere in the middle: neither are to be trusted. I don’t know anything about the Buckland case but I do know that governments are notorious for failing to record actual death tolls, objective accounts or the context for this kind of incident. Quoting figures and official records to explain colonial history is like building a castle on quicksand. One could imagine the outcry if the Windschuttle approach – if it wasn’t written down, it didn’t happen – was used to refute the existence of WMD and death squads in Baathist Iraq.
The reason why you chaps are at odds is because you misunderstand the one fundamental rule of postmodern debate:
The quotation of history and data is only legitimate if that information is used to undermine the Western legacy. Every time a non-liberal makes a comment and backs it up with a citation, historical reference or any evidence what-so-ever, he is a priori “selective” and his argument illegitimate, invalid and unworthy of recognition. It’s quite simple, really. I’ve learned this lesson well after about nine years at Australian universities. Another thing I learned there is that it is utterly futile to reason with liberals as a result.
That’s why people like Dixon are a completely lost cause. They don’t think, they hate, and respond emotionally (negatively) to their own people’s history, no matter that that history may have been presented to them in a fraudulent manner by educational elites. Dixon et al are suspicious of everything, but not those elites. A nice warm cup of irony, anyone?
It shows them to be either plain stupid, or unhappily naive. Either way, it all very amusing…
Mark R, you’ve gone to great lengths to disprove my example of the (untold) numbers of Chinese massacred in this area in 1857, but (as Mark L points out) you’ve diverted a long way from the original thrust of my comment on your Myall Creek post. Which was that it carries racist overtones.
You’re using similar arguments to Sophie Mirabella – you know her don’t you? She says NO aboriginal children were stolen. None, whatsoever. Of course she refers to “official” records to support her position.
The argument here comes down to the relative credibility of an oral history, as opposed to a written record.The problem with an oral history can be demonstrated by playing a game of Chinese whispers, the message at the beginning is never the same as the one at the end. The only time that there is any sort of reliability of the content in the transmission of an oral tradition usually involves the use of poetry or song and even that is subject to much change with each retelling.
When it comes to documentary evidence there is the possibility that the original information has been tainted by the intentions of the writer or that there are omissions of pertinent facts. There are also issues of the changes in the use of words or terms which should be considered.
However when it comes down to it I think that I would put more faith in the documentary evidence over an oral tradition because though both have potential for errors the potential for compounded errors in an oral tradition are far greater than in a contemporaneous written account though.
I think there’s definitely a not of PC involved in accepting oral historical evidence as fact. I remember at uni they alleged that the legal system discriminated against Aborigines by not allowing for stories to be told as a substitute for written proof.
And of course, allowing the say-so of tribal elders etc can be dangerous. Think back to that case where that 14 year old Aboriginal girl was sodomised because, according to the man accused, it was part of their tribal custom.
According to the left, that’s perfectly fine because we can’t question the word of members of black tribes, and their values are unquestionably equal to ours, no matter what they are.
actually Leon If I recall correctly I think that the girl you allude to may have been only ten… 🙄
oh, that was Arukun. I’m talking about a different case, in 2006. I specifically recall that Peter Costello was the acting PM, and he declared to Parliament that “a rape is a rape and this government will not let political correctness stand in the way of that fact”, or words to that effect.
So keen to debunk mistreatment of aborigines. Why?
Ray, you should have written “so keen to debunk untrue accounts of the mistreatment of Aborigines”.
Why? I can think of several good reasons. Why would you want your own country’s history to be portrayed more negatively than it really was? Why would you want your own forebears to be vilified for crimes they didn’t commit? Why would you want the tradition you identify with to be routinely maligned? Why would you want, as a white person, to be cast in the essentially negative role of oppressor? Why would you want your own children and grandchildren to be demoralised in their identity? Why would you want to feed, with exaggerated accounts of mistreatment, the resentment and victimhood of Aborigines?
Ray, sympathising with Aborigines by maligning whites is not the mark of a great heart. There are other, more graceful ways to do it.
Gee Mark, I ask one simple question and instead of giving an answer you respond with 6 questions of your own!
Anyway there’s one simple answer to your questions: None of those things would eventuate from accepting that, by and large aborigines, were mistreated. The consequences for the rest of Australia in accepting that this tiny minority group have had a pretty rough trot over the years, and that now it’s appropriate to acknowledge that and mend the bridges, can only be positive. It does not and would not diminish our status, past, present & future.
I still remain puzzled as to why you (or anyone else) would be concerned that “one aspect only of race relationships in colonial Australia is recognised.” Why would this bother you?
“I still remain puzzled as to why you (or anyone else) would be concerned that “one aspect only of race relationships in colonial Australia is recognised.” Why would this bother you?”
How about racism in historical versions?
How about factual inaccuracies in historical versions?
None of these things bother you Ray?
You obviously don’t value factual correctness very highly.
I see you’re answering my question with questions too, Leon. How about those things? So what? Big deal. No, those things don’t bother me. Why does the “factual correctness” on the discrimiation against aborigines bother you so much? Or, like Sophie, do you say it didn’t happen?
Again, you completely misrepresent what Mark and I are saying. The only way you can stay in this argument is by adopting the straw man.
What are you saying then? I think it’s pretty clear what the argument is. Mark has said (in his original post):
The heritage listing of the site is part of a longer term trend in which one aspect only of race relationships in colonial Australia is recognised, namely white violence toward Aborigines.
And I have asked why that matters to him (and you), but all I’ve got back is a series of meaningless questions.
Whoa, I just had a look at Mark R’s site and the comments under his original post on this topic. Oh geezus, what a complex way of defending one’s own clearly racist views. Attack those who would disagree with you and label them all “of the left’ or “liberals” or whatever. I’m not ‘of the left’ per se, and on some issues I’m quite conservative. But at least I can answer a straight question!
The reason why you chaps are at odds is because you misunderstand the one fundamental rule of postmodern debate
Umm, no Kilroy, the reason we’re at odds is because neither Mark R or Leon will explain why it matters to them (so much!) that aboriginal violence against whites is not given as much prominence as white massacres of aborigines.
They hint (in their questions) that, unless we have this “factual correctness”, we as a nation will somehow be diminished. But they do not say how. That’s probably because there is no consequence they can point to.
What they fail (or refuse) to understand is that the point of acknowledging past injustices to aborigines is that they are a tiny minority in this country and a very disadvantaged one, and these acts of saying “sorry” and acknowledging the past wrongs that were done to their people serve to unite the nation and help us move forward.
Whereas there is nothing to be served or gained by acknowledging past black crimes against the whites – because we do not need that to feel included in this society. Get it?
Btw, labelling your opposition a “lost cause”, “stupid” and “naive” is not “debate”.
Ray I seems obvious to me that anyone who has a commitment to the truth would want the whole picture of the conflict between Aboriginal people and white settlers or even Chinese and European miners properly explored. What makes you think that either Mark or Leon is trying to down play the violence done to aboriginals? They aren’t but they are saying that with out the context of other incidents (some of which were black on white violence) then we can’t really understand what actually happened.
It is obvious to me that id the story of our past has significant errors or omissions then we are basing our understanding of our own history on very shaky foundation
Their position (and mine) is that we can acknowledge past injustices without pretending that every aborigine was by definition an innocent and that every white person was by virtue of their race a murdering rogue and scoundrel.
There is an very important thing being served by acknowledging that internecine violence went both ways and that is the truth, something that all people who seek to understand history should respect.
Well Iain, if it’s just about getting history right then good, get your history right and let’s acknowledge all aboriginal violence against whites with equal prominence. Let’s demand they say “sorry” too. And let’s build memorials commemorating whites being speared to death at various sites.
I’ve no problem with any of that if that’s what you want to do. But I still don’t see what point it would serve.
You see, these acknowledgements are not really about “history”, they’re more about healing the present so more Australians can have a better future.
Ray
to paraphrase a rather famous quote “those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat its mistakes”
I really can’t understand how you can be so keen for any “healing” to be based upon a distorted understanding of history. The truth is actually very important and distorting it can only be bad for the future.
‘I really can’t understand how you can be so keen for any “healing” to be based upon a distorted understanding of history’
I’m not. The healing is based upon the accepted history – that aborigines WERE mistreated. Once again, you do not explain how it might be “bad for the future” if we do not “get all our facts right” and equally acknowledge aboriginal injustices against whites. I suspect that’s because you can’t.
But Ray neither Mark, Leon or I are denying that aborigines were badly treated and the bone of contention is that YOU want to ignore one part of the story , namely black on white violence. Frankly you have not made a good case for ignoring that side of the history.
That’s reversing the issue Iain. The issue is that neither you, Mark or Leon have made a good case for the need to acknowledge black violence on whites. Refer to the original post where Mark says, “The heritage listing of the site is part of a longer term trend in which one aspect only of race relationships in colonial Australia is recognised, namely white violence toward Aborigines. That’s what this debate is about and I would have thought the onus is on those who made the initial contention to back it up a bit better.
Oh but we have Ray we all contend that an accurate understanding of all of the history is important and that acknowledging all violence is necessary for a realistic picture of historical conflict between aborigines and whites. You say it does not matter if black fellers speared whites ect.
Look it is like trying to describe a boxing match without reporting any of the blows by one of the fighters it then just sounds like a beating rather than a fight and that is just not how it was.
I haven’t said “it doesn’t matter”, I’ve said there is nothing to gain from acknowledging black violence against whites – because we do not need that recognition to go on with our lives. And you haven’t said what there is to gain by it.
Look, we could debate this forever. The problem (as I see it) is you have a fixed position – that “understanding ALL history” (as you put it) is more important than saying “sorry” and acknowledging past wrongs to the original inhabitants.
If that’s your position so be it. But it looks like you’re out of step with what most people believe. Just like Sophie. Cheers.
Ray, what I said ibid stands, and your exchange with Mark and Ian only confirms what I wrote, namely, that ‘[t]he quotation of history and data is only legitimate if that information is used to undermine the Western legacy. Every time a non-liberal makes a comment and backs it up with a citation, historical reference or any evidence what-so-ever, he is a priori “selective” and his argument illegitimate, invalid and unworthy of recognition.‘
There is one definitive pattern in your exchange that provides evidence of this: you are disturbed that there are people out there that challenge (effectively) the assumption about the most gruesome aspects of our history; you are unconcerned that apparent falsehoods are held up as ‘history’ and think we should continue to be indoctrinated by them.
The fact of the matter is this, if you truly believed yourself to be right, then inquiring minds like those of Mark, and indeed historians like Windshuttle, wouldn’t bother you one iota. Indeed, you would welcome them as agents to exercise and strengthen the truth. Since you don’t, you obviously have no interest in the truth of the plight of the Australian aborigine, which is another irony, since I’m sure you believe yourself to be championing thier interests here.
That’s why I concluded with the following, which I believe is apt: ‘That’s why people like Dixon are a completely lost cause. They don’t think, they hate, and respond emotionally (negatively) to their own people’s history, no matter that that history may have been presented to them in a fraudulent manner by educational elites. Dixon et al are suspicious of everything, but not those elites. […] It shows them to be either plain stupid, or unhappily naive […]’
That’s just a load of irrelevant self-serving waffle that’s hardly worth responding to “Kilroy”. Again, lacing your arguments with insults just shows how piss-weak your argument is. You’re just repeating yourself. What’s the point? You haven’t made one. Mine is above. See ya.
Yes, this is yet another phenomenon I have noticed among liberals. If they can’t dismiss a criticism as bigotry, they’ll dismiss it as “irrelevant self serving waffle.”
Ray Dixon: I made no attempt to prove anything to you, no was I even speaking to you in the first place. I merely made an observation on how people like you engage in debate on history. The observation was, and is, by definition, subjective; be that as it may, I believe I was making a good point insofar as (a) liberals never ascribe legitimacy to the conservative world view, and your own words here lend credibility to this suggestion, and (b) for people that were begotten by the anti-establishmentarian soixanthuitards, you are surprisingly trusting of liberal elite opinion. The only reason is either because you are naïve or plain stupid. This is not intended as an insult, rather a logical deduction.
As for being repetitive, had you neutralized by initial comments, I would not have felt the need to be.
“See ya,” indeed.
I hate doing this style of “quote & response” comment but, oh what the f… you asked for it Kilroy.
no(r) was I even speaking to you in the first place: No, you were talking about me. Sorry for responding Kilroy.
people like you…: There is no one in this world like me.
liberals never ascribe legitimacy to the conservative world view, and your own words here lend credibility to this suggestion: Crap, I’m more conservative than Iain, according to the political compass test. Maybe you should take it too Kilroy? Seriously though, your fault here is you generalise about something you call “liberals”. And what the hell is “the conservative world view”? I have conservative views on many issues such as terorism, drugs & crime. I have “left leaning views” on social matters like racism & inclusiveness. And I’m also a capitalist property owner & developer. So where the f..k do I sit in your “world view”?
the anti-establishmentarian soixanthuitards Speak english please, this is Australia!
you are naïve or plain stupid. This is not intended as an insult, rather a logical deduction: To say that’s not an insult is really stupid.
Quite frankly “Kilroy”, you seem to lack life experience (and debating skills). Over & out.