Phillip had estimated that there were about 1,500 aborigines around Sydney when he first arrived in 1788. By the eighteen-thirties only a few hundred remained. Darwin, in 1836, found them still trying to live their tribal lives among the colonists' farms on the outskirts of the settlement, but there were practically no wild animals left for them to hunt. A few years later even this last remnant had disappeared, and all that was left were a few beggars in the Sydney streets. 'Wherever the European has trod,' Darwin wrote, 'death seems to pursue the aboriginal. We may look to the wide extent of the Americas, Polynesia, the Cape of Good Hope and Australia, and we find the same result...'

its cool how slightly different excerpts of the exact same paragraph can change meaning significantly:



from Broome's "Aboriginal Victorians" p 93.

Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 (Aug. 18, 2016 10:16:03)

The intervention of the French Jesuits in the disciplining and training of the Montagnais-Naskapi, in mid-17th century Canada, provides a revealing example of how gender differences were accumulated. The story is told by the late anthropologist Eleanor Leacock in her Myths of Male Dominance (1981), where she examines the diary of one of its protagonists. This was Father Paul Le Jeune, a Jesuit missionary who, in typical colonial fashion, had joined a French trading post to Christianize the Indians, and turn them into citizens of “New France.” The Montagnais-Naskapi were a nomadic Indian nation that had lived in great harmony, hunting and fishing in the eastern Labrador Peninsula. But by the time of Le Jeune’s arrival, their community was being undermined by the presence of Europeans and the spread of fur-trading, so that some men, eager to strike a commercial alliance with them, were amenable to letting the French dictate how they should govern themselves (Leacock 1981: 396).

As often happened when Europeans came in contact with native Americans populations, the French were impressed by Montagnais-Naskapi generosity, their sense of cooperation and indifference to status, but they were scandalized by their “lack of morals;” they saw that the Naskapi had no conception of private property, of authority, of male superiority, and they even refused to punish their children (Leacock 1981: 34-38). The Jesuits decided to change all that, setting out to teach the Indians the basic elements of civilization, convinced that this was necessary to turn them into reliable trade partners. In this spirit, they first taught them that “man is the master,” that “in France women do not rule their husbands,” and that courting at night, divorce at either partner’s desire, and sexual freedom for both spouses, before or after marriage, had to be forbidden. Here is a telling exchange Le Jeune had, on this score, with a Naskapi man:

“I told him it was not honorable for a woman to love anyone else except her husband, and that this evil being among them, he himself was not sure that his son, who was present, was his son. He replied, ‘Thou has no sense. You French people love only your children; but we love all the children of our tribe.’ I began to laugh seeing that he philosophized in horse and mule fashion” (ibid.: 50).

Backed by the Governor of New France, the Jesuits succeeded in convincing the Naskapi to provide themselves with some chiefs, and bring “their” women to order. Typically, one weapon they used was to insinuate that women who were too independent and did not obey their husbands were creatures of the devil. When, angered by the men’s attempts to subdue them, the Naskapi women ran away, the Jesuits persuaded the men to chase after their spouses and threaten them with imprisonment:

“Such acts of justice” – Le Jeune proudly commented in one particular case – “cause no surprise in France, because it is usual there to proceed in that manner. But among these people ... where everyone considers himself from birth as free as the wild animals that roam in their great forests ... it is a marvel, or rather a miracle, to see a peremptory command obeyed, or any act of severity or justice performed” (ibid.: 54).

The Jesuits’ greatest victory, however, was persuading the Naskapi to beat their children, believing that the “savages’” excessive fondness for their offspring was the major obstacle to their Christianization. Le Jeune’s diary records the first instance in which a girl was publicly beaten, while one of her relatives gave a chilling lecture to the bystanders on the historic significance of the event: “This is the first punishment by beating (he said) we inflict on anyone of our Nation...” (ibid.: 54-55).

The Montagnais-Naskapi men owed their training in male supremacy to the fact that the French wanted to instill in them the “instinct” for private property, to induce them to become reliable partners in the fur trade. Very different was the situation on the plantations, where the sexual division of labor was immediately dictated by the planters’ requirements for labor-power, and by the price of commodities produced by the slaves on the international market.

swampman posted:

Yeah consider that in light of Federici writing about how wife- and child-beating were literally European imports to aboriginal populations

this is great, thanks.

As it happens i was listening to an interview with Nigel Scullion, the federal Indigenous Affairs minister, yesterday and something leapt out at me. (The interview, by the way, was recorded just before the four corners NT youth justice expose.) He was asked about justice targets, i.e. reducing Aboriginal incarceration rates, and he had something very curious to say about what the NT system was doing right:

I have to say, the Northern Territory government have got a target on victims, because for- the number of incarcerations for Indigenous people is very high, but the number of victims - Indigenous victims, that are associated with those incarcerations, is sickening. They're very vulnerable people, by and large, they're women, invariably, and we do need to make some changes - we've just made some significant investment, I've made some announcements, investing in domestic violence, and those investments are gonna be made to prevent domestic violence and prevent violence against women and children. Now, those investments have been made in a way that is going to be dealing with Aboriginal organisations, Aboriginal communities at a grassroots level, to lift their capacity to deal with many of the elements of these themselves. Not only education, we've got some absolutely outstanding evidence around some pre-release programs, that insures that- and the evidence is that they, there's something- over 80% of people, there's no recidivist offense, because they actually start understanding, um - I know in my life, in most men's lives, women are the most important people in our lives. Our mums, y'know, our grandmothers, y'know our wives, our lovers, our daughters, they're all such important people, and yet in some circumstances, normally in circumstances of abject poverty - because high levels of domestic violence have got nothing to do with being an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, and have everything to do with poverty and a lack of opportunity.

There's a lot going on here but what strikes me is the trotting out of the old trope of widespread black domestic violence, as though that accounts for the majority of incarcerations, and the strong implication that this is a cultural issue of not understanding the value of women (as mothers, wives, and daughters), for which the primary solution is education... but then the contemporary twist, which is to quickly put away the dogwhistle and pretend he's not implying anything about race, because domestic violence is actually a poor people problem, and Aboriginal communities just happen to be poor...

This is the first book to systematically explore the other side of the frontier, to turn Australian history, not upside down, but inside out. It establishes that it is possible to write Aboriginal history and present it to white Australians in such a way that they can understand black motives and appreciate the complexities of their tragic story. W.K. Hancock's judgement of 1930 that Aboriginal society was 'pathetically helpless' when assailed by Europeans can be seen now as a travesty albeit still an influential one. Even today sympathetic whites speak of the blacks as the passive objects of European brutality or charity

(page 198)

This book, as far as I can tell, is largely aimed at a white audience, and even includes this strange warning towards the end:

In the long run black Australians will be our equals or our enemies. Unless they can identify with new and radical interpretations of our history they will seek sustenance in the anti-colonial traditions of the third world. If they are unable to find a place of honour in the white man's story of the past their loyalties will increasingly dwell with the 'wretched of the earth'.

(page 199)

What does this mean? Be nicer to black ppl or they'll admire the Viet Cong? They'll start reading Fanon? They'll sing L'Internationale? Scary... Better give them a "place of honour" in "the white man's story".

Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 (Aug. 19, 2016 00:43:12)

The sudden arrival of Europeans provoked more than fear and curiosity. It sparked intense and often prolonged debate as to the true nature of the white men, their origin and objectives. During the early years of settlement many blacks believed that Europeans were beings returned from the dead, an assessment confirmed by the testimony of the small group of Europeans who gained some insight into tribal attitudes and behaviour. Moorhouse, the Protector of Aborigines in South Australia, believed it was the 'universal impression' among blacks of that colony. Eyre thought the 'general belief' was that Europeans were 'resuscitated natives' while Stokes considered the view 'universally diffused' among the tribes. Writing of his experience of Port Essington Windsor-Earl noted that local clans recognized the spirits of the dead in all the strangers who visited their country. Castaways and escapees concurred, Buckley reporting that Port Phillip Aborigines were convinced that white men were Aborigines who 'had returned to life in a different colour'. Thompson found on Cape York that all the local blacks thought that white men were the 'spirits of black men come again in a new form'. When Davis, the Moreton Bay escapee, was 'rescued' by an exploring party his relatives said he was going back to join the dead. Linguistic evidence provides further confirmation. All over the continent in areas of early settlement the Aborigines applied to Europeans traditional terms meaning variously, ghost, spirit, eternal, departed, the dead. In north Queensland, settled in the second half of the nineteenth century, the same rule applied. The celebrated ethnographer W.E. Roth observed that in the many local dialects which he had recorded the same word was 'found to do duty for a European and a deceased aboriginal's spirit, ghost'.

(pages 30-31)

For how long did this view of the European prevail? Unfortunately the evidence is so meagre that we must speculate. However, it is realistic to assume that the nature of the white man was a major question of debate within Aboriginal society and that the emergence of a more 'secular' view of the newcomers took place unevenly both between and within tribal groups. A writer in the Perth Gazette remarked in 1836 that it was impossible to dissuade the old people from their original view of the Europeans but the younger ones were beginning 'to have their faith shaken on this point'. Moorhouse, the Protector of Aborigines in South Australia sensed the shift of Aboriginal opinion. Local blacks, he wrote, were concluding that white people were 'nothing but men'.

(pages 35-36)

Aboriginal misconceptions about the white invader had important consequences for the early development of the Australian colonies, shielding infant and insecure settlements from latent black hostility. Perth aborigines were asked why they speared the settlers if they genuinely looked upon them as ancestors and friends. Their answer was interesting. They said that in their view they had treated the whites with much greater consideration that would have been shown to strange blacks. If unknown Aborigines had attempted to intrude in the way the Europeans had done the local clans would 'have done all in their power to destroy them'. In South Australia Moorhouse noted that as long as the Aboriginal illusions about Europeans survived they 'seldom attacked the whites'. Consequently he wanted to preserve black misconceptions as long as possible otherwise they would come to realize that Europeans could be 'beaten, overcome and murdered by the same means as the natives themselves'. Similar views were expressed in north Queensland a generation later. The editor of the Port Denison Times remarked in 1866 that local blacks were rapidly losing a portion of the 'awe of the white man, which is so great a safe-guard to us'. He was concerned that they would 'very soon lose... their superstitious dread' of the Europeans, that:

the less insight the blackfellows are allowed to get into the white man's habits the more awe they will have of him, and the more easy they will be to manage

(pages 39-40)

Much of the rest of this chapter is showing Aboriginal reactions towards Europeans in their paintings, music etc. Particularly interesting in my opinion is their incorporation of domesticated European dogs into their hunting practices. Reynolds point here is to show that Aboriginal culture was not this petrified thing, but perfectly capable of changing in response to these new conditions.

Aborigines were neither apathetic in face of the European invasion nor incurious about the newcomer's lifestyle. The historical record indicated that they were not locked into a rigid unchanging culture. They showed themselves just as capable of adapting to altered circumstances as the European pioneers who were learning to strike their own balance between continuity and innovation in the new world. Yet there were aspects of Aboriginal culture and philosophy which proved remarkably resistant to change. Traditional society was, therefore, both more conservative and more innovative than standard accounts have suggested with their picture of a culture too rigid to bend collapsing suddenly and completely under the pressure of European invasion.

There may be an important clue to Aboriginal behaviour in the attitude of the Loddon River clans to the ravages of venereal infection. While continuing to believe unshakably in the traditional theories of disease they regarded V.D. as a post-contact phenomenon due to physical contact with Europeans and, unlike other illnesses, amenable to white medicine. Implicit in this reaction was the acceptance of a realm of experience new to Aboriginal society outside the sway of customary belief and practice. It may have been such judgements that broke the seal of custom and opened the way for innovation, creating in the process the complex pattern of continuity and change discussed to this point. But emphasis on cultural change and adaption should not obscure the overwhelming importance of the violent conflict accompanying the invasion of the continent.

(page 59-60)

Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 (Aug. 22, 2016 03:22:01)

Makeshift_Swahili posted:

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/32504845/attorney-general-blasts-kalgoorlie-lynch-mob/#page1

"It is wholly contrary to a civilised society to have lynch mob-type behaviour outside a courthouse. The police have done a fantastic job in meeting the challenge presented to them in protecting the community," Mr Mischin said.

nice choice of words there

fucking hell.

counterpoint (by which i mean, the opinion of someone with a beating human heart pumping blood rather than thick oozing squirts of hitler juice): https://newmatilda.com/2016/08/31/the-kalgoorlie-uprising-a-rational-response-to-another-black-death/

In the midst of all this, Elijah Doughty, a 14-year-old boy who dreamed of being a star footballer, is lying dead in a morgue.

He was someone’s cousin, nephew, brother, grandson, friend.

Those condemning protestors in Kalgoorlie would do well to remember that. And they would do well to remember that the system entrusted to deliver justice for this young boy is the same justice system that freed the killers of John Pat. It’s the same justice system that saw no response, no accountability, for the death of Mr Ward. It’s the same system that ignored the cries of Ms Dhu.

And it comes from the same nation that does this to children on Nauru, and men and women seeking asylum.

All eyes are now on that system, and how it responds to Elijah’s death.

None of this means that Aboriginal people can expect justice will be delivered. It wasn’t for Mulrunji, for John Pat, for Mr Ward, for Kwementyaye Ryder, for the Bowraville children and for many, many others.

But it does mean that a system which has brutalised Aboriginal people for more than 200 years will come under far greater scrutiny.

The fact is, violence sometimes is the answer. It was our answer in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Vietnam. It’s our answer on Manus and Nauru. It is frequently our answer when it suits white interests. State sanctioned violence is carried out in all our names, for all our benefit.

While yesterday’s violence was not state sanctioned, this morning, you’re only reading about it because Aboriginal people fought back.

Makeshift_Swahili posted:

Petrol posted:

also a santamaria book, personally i find that more interesting but ymmv...

is it "Price of Freedom"?

actually yes

Petrol posted:

oh cool. nice http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-19/turnbull-regrets-australia-jet-involvement-in-syria-air-strike/7856712

sometimes i wonder about 'what it means' when left-liberals are more bloodthirsty than these neoliberal types or people in real positions of power. like Turnbull's apologising and bhpn posts that screenshot of SA posters cheering. i remember a similar situation with Libya, all these liberals wishing for intervention while Donald Rumsfeld was at least saying "no, don't put boots on the ground". a years or two ago Richard DiNatale was on Andrew Bolt talking about how Assad was the real threat in Syria and ISIS was not so important. just an interesting dynamic, probably indicative of how thoroughly the language of humanitarian intervention has permeated the liberal psyche?

Makeshift_Swahili posted:

sometimes i wonder about 'what it means' when left-liberals are more bloodthirsty than these neoliberal types or people in real positions of power. like Turnbull's apologising and bhpn posts that screenshot of SA posters cheering... just an interesting dynamic, probably indicative of how thoroughly the language of humanitarian intervention has permeated the liberal psyche?

well it has trickled down quite thoroughly, that language, albeit with clearly defined (pro-imperial) limits... but as far as turnbull's apology, it's only indicative of the state of diplomatic play - in reality we maybe knew what we were doing, maybe not, but it's kind of irrelevant because we follow the US line in this conflict in both deed and word, and they're (for obvious reasons) saying it was a big whoopsie and hey anyway who you callin' killers, russia??!? i find the nuances of the reporting more interesting for what they tell us about the discourse and its actors. for instance, the Syrian Observatory for One Dude in Britain Reporting All the Casualties appears to have overestimated Syrian army casualties by 50% compared to Russian military reports. Possibly taking the opportunity to deflect the otherwise obvious bias by overreporting on an uncontested instance of US coalition slaughter? Also, I like how between the Assad rep and Russia they've thrown in the Iranian opinion, just to drive home how suspicious we should be of the position that this was a planned, deliberate strike. But most importantly, I haven't slept for about 48 hours because I was finishing an assignment and intermittently watching Legend of the Galactic Heroes and now I'm probably not in a fit state to continue posting

Australian historians have only recently rediscovered the violence used to secure the conquest and effect the pioneering of the continent. Yet almost every district settled during the nineteenth century had a history of conflict between local clans and encroaching settlers. Many of the Europeans who lived through the time of confrontation were quite realistic about the human cost of colonisation. A small town pioneer wrote in 1869 that his community 'had its foundations cemented in blood'. 'I believed I am not wrong in stating', observed another, that 'every acre of land in these districts was won from the Aborigines by bloodshed and warfare'. Black resistance in its many forms was an inescapable feature of life on the fringes of European settlement from the first months at Sydney Cove until the early years of the twentieth century. The intensity and duration of conflict varied widely depending on the terrain, indigenous population densities, the speed of settlement, the type of introduced economic activity, even the period of first contact.

(page 61)

A sub-section entitled Land Ownership which is important in considering non-capitalist conceptions of land. Two different positions are described here, it'd be interesting to see if one or another viewpoint has become dominant since 1981 when Reynolds was writing (reynolds himself seems to be leaning towards the second interpretation. perhaps his view has hardened since then?):

There are two basic positions. Radcliffe-Brown argued, and has been supported more recently by Tindale and Birdsell, that Aboriginal Australia was divided into clearly defined, discrete territories with fixed and known boundaries. In an essay of 1913 Radcliffe-Brown referred to a 'very rigid system' of land ownership backed up with strict laws relating to trespass. In his classic 1930 study of the social organization of Aboriginal Australia, he defined the horde as a 'small group of persons owning a certain area of territory, the boundaries of which are known, and possessing in common proprietary rights of the land and its products'. In 1974 Tindale argued that all tribes claim and occupy a 'discrete territory with finite limits beyond which members have a sense of trespass'.

The second view, advocated by Hiatt, Meggitt, Petersen and others, is that boundaries were far less clear and social organization more complex than traditional theories have allowed. The very concept of the self-contained tribe has been called into question with the suggestion that Aborigines identified themselves according to kinship, marriage, territory, totemism, language and ceremony and that these overlapped and intersected in complex ways. Sutton has argued that descent groups owned constellations of sacred sites rather than neat parcels of land. While most of the sites were clustered together a significant number were separated by sites belonging to other groups while some sites were owned by more than one descent group. Estates, he concluded, were not 'whole blocks or tracts of country in the sense of surveyed real estate' but were 'collections of points in a landscape'. Land-use patterns were complex as well. Neighbouring clans intermingled, foraging and hunting on each other's territory; easements were provided for travellers, temporary hospitality for sojourners. While discussing the ritual and economic life of the Yir-Yaront of Cape York Lauriston Sharp carefully defined tribal attitudes towards ownership, access and trespass:

A majority of the Yir-Yaront clans have multiple countries which are not contiguous, and which vary from an acre or two up to a number square miles in area. The countries of a clan, with their natural resources, are owned by all clan members in common ... The right of exclusion is exercised only in exceptional cases, in which there is an actual or pretended drain on the resources of the land, indicating that one of the chief functions of clan ownership of the land is the apportionment and conservation of natural resources. The natives state that a clan may even forbid a man crossing clan territory to get from one of his own clan territories to another, but no example of such extreme clan action could be cited. People gather and hunt, ordinarily, in whatever country they will. Thus there is practically a standing permission which opens a clan's countries to all, but this permission may be withdrawn by the clan for those who are persona non grata.

The second strand of interpretation seems more pertinent for the assessment of the Aboriginal response to European explorers and pioneers. As a general rule clans did not react immediately to European trespass although illusions about returning relatives or fear of guns may have significantly modified their behaviour. Indeed the history of inland exploration indicates that local groups tolerated the passage of European expeditions provided they behaved with circumspection. On many occasions Aborigines hospitably allowed squatting parties to establish themselves and even assisted them during the first few weeks of their occupation. Clearly white and black perceptions of what was taking place were very wide apart. Unless forewarned Aborigines probably had no appreciation of the European's determination to stay indefinitely and to 'own' the soil. After all the first white intruders came and went again in a way that would have fully accorded with black expectations. Even Morrell {M_S note: a white man who got shipwrecked and lived for 17 years with Aboriginals} had difficulty in explaining the objectives of the first squatting party to enter his district. He persuaded his clan to go on a hunting expedition to the hill overlooking the camp of the pioneer stock-men but his kinsmen were doubtful if they would find the Europeans in the same spot as earlier reports had placed them. Thinking that the white men were the 'same as themselves', Morrell explained, 'they were not sure whether they were there'. Initially the white intrusion may have seemed an event of merely transient importance. {...} The expectation that the settlers would eventually go away lingered for may years in some places. In the 1960s old Dyirbal people in north Queensland still had 'a solid hope that one day the white man would be driven out, and the tribe would once more be able to resume peaceful occupation of its traditional lands'. The Europeans had been in the district for ninety years.

(pages 63-65)

But Aborigines reacted less to the original trespass than to the ruthless assertion by Europeans of exclusive proprietorial rights often from the very first day of occupation. It was behaviour probably unheard of in traditional society. Increasingly the newcomers impinged on accustomed patterns of life, occupying the flat, open land and monopolizing the surface water. Indigenous animals were driven away, plant life eaten or trampled and Aborigines pushed into the marginal country - mountains, swamps, waterless neighbourhoods. Patterns of seasonal migration broke down, areas remaining free of Europeans were over utilized and eventually depleted of both flora and fauna. Food became scarcer and available in less and less variety and even access to water was often difficult. Attacks on sheep and cattle, made frequently in desperation, provoked violent retaliation: reprisal and revenge spiralled viciously.

(page 66)

Anger about European possessiveness was clearly one of the motives behind the taking and destruction of their stock and other property. Aborigines acted to make the whites share their goods; the motivation was as much political as economic. It was not so much the possessions that mattered as affirmation of the principles of reciprocity. The great disparity of property merely exacerbated tensions inherent in the situation. Innumerable small skirmishes over European possessions appearing to be little better than unseemly brawls, were in reality manifestations of a fundamental clash of principle, the outward showing of one of the most significant moral and political struggles in Australian history. The settlers were transplanting a policy of possessive individualism, hierarchy and inequality. Aboriginal society was reciprocal and materially egalitarian although there were important political and religious inequalities based on age and sex. Two such diametrically opposed societies could not merge without conflict. One or the other had to prevail

(pages 69-70)

im gonna post a lot from this chapter because most of it's very good and relevant to marxist ideas of primitive accumulation and enclosure of commons.

Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 (Sept. 19, 2016 10:56:21)

Makeshift_Swahili posted:

Petrol posted:

Makeshift_Swahili posted:

Petrol posted:

also a santamaria book, personally i find that more interesting but ymmv...

is it "Price of Freedom"?

actually yes

thats the one ive seen around a few times, assumed it was the most popular.

pick it up if it's cheap. it's notable for, among other things, making very explicit the goal of the catholic anticommunist movement that australia be permanently wedded to the US in terms of foreign policy and defence (which is not to blame the catholics for that outcome but to point out how that particular movement had a very specific ally)

Conflict over women was a constant feature of relations between white and black, an aspect of conflict stressed by nineteenth century observers and one much more familiar to Aborigines than the struggle for land and water. Women were a major focus of indigenous politics and control of their bestowal was perhaps the principal source of secular power in traditional society. The arrival of the Europeans saw the conjunction of an almost womanless pioneer population and a society which allowed the ceremonial exchange of women and the offer of sexual favours as a means of hospitality or method of diplomacy. The resulting sexual symbiosis preceded, followed, even punctuated periods of interracial conflict. Some explorers reported the offer of women, others were discreetly silent on the matter, none admitted to temptation. Sturt noted that his camp was overwhelmed with offers of sexual accommodation while in the Centre; Giles found that attractive young women were brought up to his men one after another; while on his Lake Eyre expedition of 1874 Lewis observed that despite the fear his party evoked local clans sent 'as is customary with them six of their lubras as a peace offering'. When Moorehouse visited the tribes on the Lower Murray after intense conflict conflict with the parties travelling from New South Wales to South Australia they told him that all the white people they had ever seen before asked for women to be brought up so that they could have sexual intercourse with them.

Physical understanding, perhaps even mutual gratification, appears to have quickly bridged the gulf between the cultures but an understanding of the social and political ramifications of sexuality took much longer. For most frontiersmen an encounter ended abruptly with ejaculation and withdrawal; for Aboriginal women and their kin that was often just the beginning.The randy womanless white man was not only encircled in warm flesh: he was also enmeshed in an intricate web of kinship. The acceptance by the settler of what seemed to be quick, casual copulation frequently involved him in expectations of reciprocity, and what was more, continuing reciprocity. Many apparently excessive demands for food, tobacco and the like came from blacks expecting European men to behave henceforth as classificatory brothers, sons and nephews. 'After that familiar intercourse', Moorehouse wrote, 'the Natives seem to claim a liberal and constant supply of food, and in case it is not given, they do not hesitate to use violence in obtaining it'. A similar situation was reported on the Gwydir river in northern New South Wales in the 1830s. Shepherds and stockmen had sexual relations with local Aboriginal women but when they subsequently 'refused the Blacks anything they wanted' attempts were made to kill them

But beyond bad behaviour stemming from ignorance of Aboriginal custom European men deliberately cheated, raped and abducted black women. The emergent frontier custom of 'gin-busting' trampled over sexual customs and incest taboos. Moorehouse set out to unravel the reasons for black hostility on the overland route from New South Wales to South Australia and sought the help of a Sydney black who had made the trip several times. The riverine clans indicated that they were becoming enraged with the whites because they had:

used the women... and much abused them. The abuse (they explained), consisted in the Europeans promising the Aborigines food, clothing and tomahawks for the use of their females, but the Europeans did not fulfill their promises, after gratifying their passions, the women were turned out late in the evening or in the night, and instead of the men having their promised rewards, they were laughed at and ridiculed.

Sexual relationships between white men and black women were, then, a major source of misunderstanding, bitterness and conflict. But many Aboriginal attacks on Europeans were motivated by revenge for previous injury or insult whether there had been any sexual contact or not

(pages 70-72)

Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 (Sept. 28, 2016 00:53:04)

Eventually the Aborigines came to appreciate the limitations of the muskets used in the first half of the nineteenth century which were inaccurate at any appreciable distance, frequently misfired and took some minutes to reload in any but experienced hands. There are numerous reports of confrontations between Aboriginal clans and lone shepherds during which the blacks taunted the European to try and incite him to fire his single charge; the shepherd for his part stood for hours with his loaded musket knowing that his only safety only lay in preserving it. {...} However there was far less scope for Aboriginal initiative when they faced settlers armed, as they were later in the century, with revolvers and repeating rifles although a writer in the Cooktown Herald in 1875 noted how Aboriginal tactics had changed in the face of European fire power. Initially their attacks had been 'daringly open' but as the 'knowledge dawned on their minds that the white race had a fatal superiority of weapons' their forays became stealthy, cautious and only made at 'great advantages of numbers and situation'.

(pages 99-100)

The gathering of intelligence was one of the most successful aspects of Aboriginal campaigns. They carefully watched the movements of exploring parties, {...} and continued to monitor the actions of pioneer settlers. Women, children and old people were often sent to observe and report on the Europeans. {...} Attacks on stations often gave indication of accurate information about households layout and domestic routines, raids being frequently mounted when the men had left home and were too far away to intervene. Houses, wrote a concerned Tasmanian settler:

became an easy prey to these insidious depredators, who will, for days and weeks, watch a house that they have marked out for plunder, till they find they whole of the males absent, they then pounce upon the dwelling, and with a celerity incredible plunder it of every article they consider valuable.

(page 101)

Reynolds makes the obvious comparison to guerilla warfare... this form of battle was "ideally suited to their loosely articulated clan organization and dispersed population" and their superior knowledge of the terrain and other bush skills (page 103). However there were some developments which also favoured the Europeans:

the rapid improvement of their weapons, their growing confidence in the bush, and, above all, their using the blacks themselves as guides, trackers and more formally in the paramilitary native police forces of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland.

(page 103-104)

the native police is a really interesting aspect of frontier violence that i hadn't heard about until recently. i don't think Reynolds gives too much detail about them in this book though...

Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 (Oct. 13, 2016 06:38:54)