Hello again.

Things have been super busy with school, work and volunteering, so I thought I would share some papers that I’ve been working on. I wrote the following paper for my indigenous sociology class, which I am really enjoying. The topic is the indigenous history of Tasmania. I didn’t know anything about it and I was shocked to find out! Enjoy 🙂

The term “genocide” often triggers an association with the reign of Adolf Hitler. When broken down it becomes evident that many instances of genocide- “a systematic destruction in part or whole of a…racial… group” (Marcus, 2010) can be seen throughout history. In the case of Australia, the history of Tasmania displays a shockingly short time span of a land once inhabited only by indigenous people, to a land with a full blooded indigenous population of zero. In order to fully understand the complex history and implications of The Black War in Tasmania, it is essential to explore the history of Van Diemen’s Land, the controversy surrounding it, and how this piece of history relates to indigenous issues in our own country.

Tasmania, formerly known as Van Diemen’s Land, was once connected to Australia’s main body by a land bridge. It is believe that the Indigenous people of Van Diemen’s Land traveled across this bridge before sea levels rose and washed it away, putting the island and it’s people into isolation for 10 000 years- the longest in human history. Because of this extended period of isolation, little is know about the ways of the indigenous people of Van Diemen’s Land before the first French settlers arrived in 1772. The French arrived and departed the island quickly after a violent encounter with the indigenous people, foreshadowing the upcoming arrival of the British. In 1803 Van Diemen’s Land was declared a British convict settlement, and over 65 000 convicts crossed the sea to settle, greatly outnumbering the indigenous people who were only 5000 strong. Violence among the British and the aboriginal people of Tasmania began immediately, and from 1803 to the late 1830s, the number of indigenous people went from 5000-1 (Rashidi, 1998).  By as early as 1804 indigenous peoples were being brutally slaughtered by the settlers with no consequences. In 1828, Governor Arthur, who was ruler of the Tasmania at the time, declared a martial law stating that whites were authorized to kill blacks. In 1830 a bounty was set of £5 per adult aboriginal and £2 per child captured alive (Rashidi, 1998). That same year, Governor Arthur created “The Black Line”. He ordered every able-bodied male to form a line across the island in hopes of cornering the remaining aboriginals. His efforts failed, as only a few aboriginals were captured. The Black Line played an important role for both the indigenous people and the settlers. The embarrassment caused by the failure of the Black Line caused the governor to reevaluate his views on how to appropriately deal with the indigenous population, and his efforts were redirected to a policy of conciliation (Jones, 1967). The Governor enlisted missionary George Augustus Robinson to conduct the “Friendly Mission” in 1829 (Blackburn, 2003). It was Robinson’s duty to find and collect the remaining indigenous people and bring them to a safe place- the Bass Straight Islands. Here, they would be placed in government settlements and educated to be “proper Christians’ (Langton, 2008).  Robinson gained the trust of tribes and stated that the Governor agreed they would be given milk, sugar and clothes once on Flinders Island. It was to be a temporary refugee until the chaos on the mainland settled down, upon which they would be able to return to their native lands (Langton, 2008). The enormous amount of effort put forward by the Governor to form the Black Line scared the native people, and helped in convincing many of them to surrender and join forces with the Robinson (Langton, 2008). Upon arrival to the islands, the aboriginals were given trousers, iron pots and pans, and blankets. Every Sunday they were made to attend prayers (Plomley, 1987). The camp was named “Wybalenna”, a direct translation meaning “Black Man’s Houses” (Plomley, 1987). Upon first arrival, it is said that the indigenous peoples accepted Wybalenna. Food shortages and diseases soon became prevalent, and the aboriginal’s way of life quickly declined. A shockingly high mortality rate in 1837 occurred after an epidemic of influeza, and this event made Wybalenna to be seen as a place of sickness. Robinson was ordered to stay there until “all the black men were dead” (Plomley, 1987, p. 99). In just a few short years, there was only one surviving aboriginal.

Because the Indigenous people of Van Diemen’s Land lived for so long in isolation and so quickly became extinct, many historians have devoted their lives to trying to piece together the truth of The Black War. Inevitably, there has been, and still is, controversy surrounding this piece of history.  “The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume 1: Van Diemen’s Land, 1803-1947”, by Keith Windschuttle has drawn a lot of attention. In it, Windschuttle calls out numerous faulty citations and extreme exaggerations by principle historians in this topic such as Henry Reynolds, Lyndall Ryan and Charles Rowley (Windschuttle, 2003). An example of the type of misinformation Windschuttle discusses in his paper is displayed by an exaggeration made by Ryan, who claims that “Tasmanian Aborigines were the victims of a conscious policy of genocide” (Rubenstein, 2004). Ryan, using the diary of the colony’s first chaplain, Rev Robert Knopwood, as her source, writes that between 1803 and 1808 the settlers killed one hundred aboriginals (Rubenstein, 2004).  However, Windschuttle claims that upon investigation the diary entry reads that only four aboriginals were killed in this time period. A similar viewpoint was made by Greg Sheridan, foreign editor of The Australian, who states that although “the past mistreatment of Aborigines is the most serious moral failing in our history…  the history of Tasmanian aboriginals never approached genocide or had any relationship to genocide” (Brantlinger, 2005, p. 11). Another point of controversy among historians is that of the true intentions of Robinson. While some argue his intentions were fully honorable (Langton, 2008), others say that he never truly cared about the aboriginals, as his diaries revealed carelessness and lack of detail in topics such as names of indigenous peoples and bands. A vast amount of controversy surrounds this topic, making it difficult to conclude if the people of Van Diemen’s Land were in fact victims of genocide.

The indigenous history of Van Diemen’s Land parallels Canada’s own history in many ways. The details of the Government settlements on the Bass Straight Islands are strikingly similar to that of Canada’s residential schools. Both institutions disregarded basic human rights such as lack of medical attention, food and mental wellness. The medical team at Wybalenna was instructed that the aboriginals were not to receive the same medical treatment as a white individual would (Plomley, 1987). Similarly, a blind eye was turned to epidemics occurring in Canadian residential schools, such as infestations of tuberculosis. Another noticeable parallel between the two countries stands out when exploring the methods used in order to get the indigenous people to come to the settlements. Broken promises are evident in both cases. In Canada, miscommunication and deceit play a major role in the reasoning behind treaty signings. The same is true in the agreement of the natives settling on the Bass Straight Islands.  Plomley states, “The basic problem is quite clear: the Aborigines had been induced to leave their native land by a promise that all their wants would be supplied and they expected this undertaking to be honoured” (Plomley, 1987, p. 85). In both Wybalenna and in residential schools, the aboriginal people were not educated in practical skills. In Canada, the Natives left schools without any skills that were applicable to the changing direction of the post-war world. In Tasmania, the aboriginals were not educated in practical skills such as farming, resulting in malnutrition and death (Plomley, 1987). Both groups in indigenous peoples were force-fed Christianity, and their own ways of knowing were disregarded and severely undervalued by the Europeans.  It is this type of treatment that led the aboriginals of Tasmania to extinction, and the First Nations of Canada to suffer long after the close of residential schools.

It is though looking critically at the history of Tasmania, the controversy surrounding it and drawing parallels to our own country’s history, that a holistic understanding of the issue can be achieved. Though exploring these topics, it can be seen that Van Diemen’s Land is a dynamic and challenging piece of history to understand. Although the accurate truth may never be known, it is important to not lose sight of the important lessons presented throughout the history of Tasmania, and continue to give this piece of history the respect and attention it deserves.